# UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF COMBAT UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT



## John Nayduk (9 Feb 2004)

In cse you‘re interested.  Would be nice if all the serving guys got theirs before the stuff starts getting sold.
 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2223695114&category=25552


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2004)

Isn‘t that illegal?


----------



## John Nayduk (9 Feb 2004)

Hope it is, but do we have enough MPs to do something about it?


----------



## dano (9 Feb 2004)

I‘ll just tell you one thing. 

I won‘t be the one buying it!


----------



## mattoigta (9 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
> [qb] Hope it is, but do we have enough MPs to do something about it? [/qb]


the other times people have sold genuine cadpat off ebay they were charged


----------



## Slumsofsackville (9 Feb 2004)

I saw a cadpat vest for sale b4, nato stocked.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2004)

Who charged them and how did they find out?


----------



## Hert (9 Feb 2004)

That could be the "fake" cadpat.  It is manufactured from the roll ends of the real material, however, it does not have any of the "technology" that the issue clothing has.

 http://www.wheelersonline.com/detail.asp?product_id=1010   

Hopefully, for the seller and the buyer, it is no the genuine article.

Stu


----------



## Slumsofsackville (9 Feb 2004)

fake Cadpat has different buttons and No velcrow for the canada flag or nametags. The Cadpat from wheelers are not CF usable, becuase different pockets, gotta sew on your name tags ETC.

What is for sale on Ebay is real.


----------



## Franko (9 Feb 2004)

I agree with Robert...they‘re the same as the ones in my closet.

Find him/her and charge ‘em.

Regards


----------



## D-n-A (9 Feb 2004)

I‘ve seen tons of CADPAT for sale on ebay, you can get the new tactical vests, uniforms, helmet covers, helmets, etc if you look around.


Where are these people getting this stuff from though?


----------



## Franko (9 Feb 2004)

Probably a leak in the supply chain. Can‘t see it being a soldier who is actually responsable for his kit. At least not in that quantity.

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2004)

Def. supply side.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (9 Feb 2004)

its deffinatley a fake because the real ones are illegal to sell. and filtering throught the supply chain is extremly difficult and stupid


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2004)

The fabric to make them is not easy to aquire either.


----------



## Evan (9 Feb 2004)

It is a fake, i have the ecaxt one in my closet right now. its based on the old olive fatigues but made in cadpat.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2004)

How is it fake?  It looks like the one I‘m wearing right now.


----------



## Franko (9 Feb 2004)

Ummm. no. They are not fake. At least the ones I saw on Ebay were‘nt.

As for the fabric...sold to only one company, and they are only bolt trimings.

As for the one‘s in your closet hawain light..those are out there too.

Regards


----------



## KeV (9 Feb 2004)

They‘re probably fake since selling real CADPAT is illegal. 

There are many places where you can buy fake CADPAT. Like this store:

 http://www.sealsactiongear.com/ 

I wouldn‘t worry too much since the only way of getting real CADPAT is by someone who was in the CF.


----------



## andrewvalentine83 (9 Feb 2004)

Apparently a lot of surplus stores are under investigation by the MPs for selling real cadpat.  I know it‘s illegal to sell it, but is it illegal to own it if you‘re a civvie?  Some of my buddies are into the whole ‘army pants and combat boots‘ look, and are wondering if they‘ll get in sh!t if they get caught with the real stuff.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (9 Feb 2004)

The fake cadpat isn‘t based on the NANO pixle design surrounding a maple leaf


that is how you know if the cadpat is real. Cadpat is based around a maple leaf design and the MARPAT used by marines is based around there logo of the eagle on a globe. Its extremely hard to spot but thats how you tell.


----------



## Danny (10 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] How is it fake?  It looks like the one I‘m wearing right now. [/qb]


WTF?


----------



## GrahamD (10 Feb 2004)

I‘m sure if those induviduals wearing real CADPAT on the street also happen to have any officers rank displayed on their "uniform" could easily be charged with impersonating an officer of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As for wearing genuine article CADPAT pants along with combat boots/docs and lets say, a bomber jacket, well I seriously doubt that they would ever face criminal charges in the matter. (unless of course they turned up stolen).
They could face some bad attitude by actual members of the Armed Forces who feel that they have not earned the right to wear bits and pieces of our soldiers uniforms.


----------



## portcullisguy (10 Feb 2004)

I‘m throwing out a thought here, but I believe the CADPAT, like most of the rest of your issued kit, belongs to the Queen until such time as it is disposed of and declared surplus.

If it belongs to the Queen, then by definition, it doesn‘t belong to you, and you cannot sell it on eBay - because it‘s not yours to sell.

So, following this logic, if it IS sold, it becomes misappropriated ("stolen").  It is illegal to offer anything for sale that is stolen, and it is illegal to purchase anything that is stolen (whether or not you know it is).  And, of course, it is illegal to possess anything that has been stolen, or that are proceeds from a crime (such as theft by conversion, fraud, etc).

This goes for any of the kit that has been issued, and that you have not actually purchased from the army.

If I go and sell my kevlar helmet, I would be in four shades of sh!t, because it‘s not mine to sell, and I have to give it back when I leave the army.  And anyway, to make it worthwhile, I‘d need to get over $200 for it, because that‘s what the CF will charge me when I don‘t turn it back in.

Would a civilian be prosecuted?  Probably not.  Unless there is some larger sort of ring involved, the police just don‘t have the resources to devote to a few pairs of CADPAT getting sold on eBay.  Then again, maybe the MP‘s _do_ have the time!


----------



## Franko (10 Feb 2004)

Yes civilians would and have been charged for possessing stolen kit by the crown.

Regards


----------



## Spartan (10 Feb 2004)

The thing about the knockoff / civie cadpat- looks like cadpat- but is a) not treated, b) is designed differently in terms of rank epaulettes, buttons etc,

 I think this one is real though... because of the velcro nametape, why people sell good kit I don‘t know.


----------



## Franko (11 Feb 2004)

Not only the name tag but the Canadian flag tab on the left shoulder is there as well.

The pants have the velcro flaps for the front pockets...

It‘s real Symchyshyn   

Regards


----------



## Franko (11 Feb 2004)

The Crown is the Government.

The Queen is the head of state...so ultimatly it is her‘s to do with as she wants. None the less she is only a head of state in name only...part of the Commonwealth thing that all ex Brit colonies have with England.

She does not "rule" as her predasesors did centuries ago.

Regards


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

Major Baker,

There is a difference between the Crown and the Queen.  Monarchs come and go, but the crown is the bedrock of uninterrupted (well, there was a brief spat in the mid-1600s) rule spanning back to the eleventh century.

Perhaps you could draw a parallel with the relationship between the Constitution and the office of the President.  Anyhow, I‘ve picked up stuff like De Toqueville and The Federalist Papers of late and find my republican urges surfacing   

As well, I am pretty sure the Queen does not recieve any money from her realm.  I believe the Windsor family is a wealthy old aristocratic family and has no need for a salary.  Can someone shed some light on that one.


----------



## portcullisguy (11 Feb 2004)

This is getting OT, but just to clear a few things up...

The Crown is the state, the state is the Crown.  Ministers (the word means "servant") act in the name of the Crown.  For their work, they are paid a salary out of Crown funds.  All of the revenue belongs to the Crown.  Once upon a time, in Robin Hood days of yore, this meant every gold farthing ended up in the proverbial castle keep.  However, for the last 300+ years, this has meant that the Crown is merely a figurative custodian for the stability of government and state, and the money does not actually "belong" to the monarch.

Think of it as the world‘s best janitor‘s job.

The Queen personally only receives money from the Duchy of Lancaster, and income from private investments.  Of the royal palaces, she owns only one: Balmoral.  It was inherited.  Although she is entitled to receive a significant portion of Crown revenue, she agreed long ago to turn this over to the government in exchange for a "Civil List" payment, which is a fraction of her income.  The Civil List payment goes to support those members of the Royal Family who do not receive income from the government, and have no comparable private wealth.  In addition, The Queen pays taxes, something she is not compelled to do legally.

This unique system, which has evolved over the years, is a curious and somewhat efficient result of the decades of struggle between the royalists and parliamentarians of years gone by, and in my opinion, includes the best elements of both sides.

This system attempts to give an air of legitimacy to the operation of government.  We do not elect judges, for example, because they should administer the laws impartially, not based on their desire for re-election.  We pay our taxes to the "Receiver General of Canada" not by name, but by office, because the person who holds the title won‘t get any richer by us paying taxes.  This same official pays out public service salaries, again to maintain impartiality.

And (bringing it back on topic), when I said CADPAT belongs to the Crown, this is both in a legal sense and in a figurative sense.  As members of the armed forces, we swear allegiance to The Queen, her lawful heirs and successors.  We took "the Queen‘s shilling" as the saying goes.  Although the government manages everything, and we must support the decisions of our lawfully and democratically elected representatives, we act in the Queen‘s name.  So, the CADPAT belongs to the Crown, which is the Queen, which is the government acting in her name.  The CADPAT, like everything else we are issued, does not belong to us individually, and we are only temporary caretakers of it, much in the same way that Ministers of state are temporary caretakers for their dept.  We are not entitled to make any personal gain from anything the Crown has given us, except our wages.

When I say "legal sense" I mean selling military stores is a criminal offence:

"s. 420(1) Military stores - Every one who buys, receives or detains from a member of the Canadian Forces or a deserter or an absentee without leave therefrom any military stores that are owned by Her Majesty or for which the member, deserter, or absentee is accountable to Her Majesty is guilty of [an offence]"

Agree or disagree, it‘s what we signed up for.


----------



## corporal-cam (10 Apr 2004)

CADPAT was only recently made available for sale with the real deal. I know this cause I have a set in my room. Now before you go and say "oh it‘s a rip off" I‘ll tell you it isn‘t the guy I got it from is a long time provider for me and a good guy I have met personaly and not some joe schmo from ebay.ca and I know he wasn‘t ripped off cause he got if straight from the CF. I also know it‘s authentic cause it has the velcro for the flag and the tags inside, the velcro on the front pokets for the pants and everything. It‘s only been legal for a very short time so don‘t tell me I‘m wrong please


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2004)

Yeah he most likely got it from the CF from the back of the supply warehouse from a pissed off supply tech.  If per chance you are telling the truth, and the combats you have in your possesion are the real deal, you very likely are in possesion of stolen government property, and as a civillian not authorised to possess the Real McCoy.


----------



## chrisf (10 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Tpr.Orange:
> [qb] The fake cadpat isn‘t based on the NANO pixle design surrounding a maple leaf
> 
> 
> that is how you know if the cadpat is real. Cadpat is based around a maple leaf design and the MARPAT used by marines is based around there logo of the eagle on a globe. Its extremely hard to spot but thats how you tell. [/qb]


A myth, perpetuated by some silly website...

The logo printed on MARPAT is actually a Marine Logo, very visible to the naked eye, without the aid of any imagination...

The sample on the website that perpetuated the myth wasn‘t large enough to show any of the logos. (Don‘t bother citing the website, I‘ve seen it myself).

 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36068&item=2236652988&rd=1 

This is an auction for some genuine MARPAT. Note the bottom right hand picture.


----------



## corporal-cam (10 Apr 2004)

to quote my surplus suplier- "Now This came in my surplus so before I get a bunch of flame e-mails saying I cannot sell it please note that I buy all my surplus from the Canadian Government so they sold it to me fair and square and I have full rights to resell it to anyone I wish to. "


----------



## Slanker (10 Apr 2004)

why would you want cadpat if your in air cadets?


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2004)

Right and surplus stores would not lie about something like that just so they could sell something.  Issue CADPAT is NOT authorized for civvies, because of the IR junk they put in it.


----------



## corporal-cam (10 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Mike Secretan:
> [qb] why would you want cadpat if your in air cadets? [/qb]


Cause I admire the forces and wearing them makes me feal special cause I feal like one of you guys kinda like a little kid playing war (although the uniform doesn‘t make me even close to the kind of person you people are, but I can dream can‘t I?)


----------



## axeman (10 Apr 2004)

i‘ve already started to see cadpat turn up in the crown assets sales/ auctions for months now . thats here in edmontton and we were among the last of the cf ARMY to get it .


----------



## Slanker (10 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by corporal-cam:
> wearing them makes me feal special


are you kidding me?!?!?! you got some freaking issues kid. do you like pretending to be some sort of commando? and people wonder why people like you get beat up...


----------



## corporal-cam (10 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Mike Secretan:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, I‘ve never been beat up and the closest I‘ve come to being beat up was being punched once and before I had a chance to punch back about 40 people swarmed the other guy and did it for me, I guess I‘m just that well liked    And I said I wanted to be a soldier, I said nothing about being a commando and the fact that you would jump on me leads me to believe you have some deep seeded psycological problems, maybe from you being beat up as a kid. Anyways this is way off topic, if anyone wants to make strange accusations towards my popularity then send an IM so the rest of us can deiscuse the legal sale of CADPATS.


----------



## Jason Bourne (10 Apr 2004)

Well said..theres maturity


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2004)

I have seen Marines wearing MARPAT, and I was shown the USMC symbol on the trouser leg, which is a digital image tucked away, and yes you can see it. I just laughed.

I have seen CADPAT ruck covers sold here in shops still bearing the CDN NSN, etc on the tag and bag.

Also CDN kevlar helmets with CADPAT covers too, and not single items but in qty, so I doubt if its hot.

After being with some CDNs in 2002, I know they‘re pretty anal, not even trading for a bush hat, etc, so I know they are tight with their kit.

As for the term Crown ppty, or Crown land, that just means its Fed Govt ppty. Here the term is rarely used, and they tend to call things Commonwealth ppty, and CW land, etc. Yes we have kit nazis here too, as unrecovered kit is csotly thing, and you all know that.

As for being goods in custody of CADPAT uniforms, it would be a hard charge to prove, as even though its marked, one would have to prove intent, etc. Pretty tight deal. For sake of argument, say  some was bought at a gun show or garage sale, they bough such goods in confidence, maybe ecen getting a receipt for them.


Kind of like being in possession of that angle torch (flashlght) when you know you bought it, and your unit has them and is short some. Unless PTE bloggins seen you take such a torch with that scratch on the lense and you have it,m thats another story. But the whole thing in being possession of CF kit, such as 82 ptrn webbing, rucks, boots etc, tjhey have to prove you took that particular item from them, and its hard.

Back in 1989 I bought a C7 bayonet direct form the manufacturer, NELLA cutlery in eastern Canada.  Some MP asked me where I got it (almost an international incident). I told him I purchased it, he accused me of theft, and siezed it. I produced the receipt, and got an appogoly from him, and his SGT the same day. Seemed he was an over zealous CPL, who was clueless in what one can buy and not, and hence he was repremanded ( and so he should have) for it. I still have that bayonet. 

So, if ther is genuine CADPAT out there, it does not necessarily mean its stolen.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Apr 2004)

Why would you want one of our bayonets?  They‘re crap.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2004)

The C7 bayonet is a modified version of the US Viet Nam vintage M7, and its better than the M7 which is encountered along with the M9 here in Australia. There are so design changes to the Cdn one.

The C7 bayonet has a good stainless blade with improved grips, and the scabbard is light, and I think better than the M8A1 and the M10, which are also encountered here in the Australian Army.

What do I use? I use an issue M9 Australian contract, and so marked on the blade.

The US M9 is heavy and bulky, but it has a good wire cutter, a screw driver on the scabbard, along with two bottle openers on the cross guard, and is superior to the original KCB176 series of bayonet from Austria, which was originally trialed by the ADF for the F88 and M16A1‘s.

I have over 200 bayonets in my collection, and the C7 Nella is a part of that now.

So why do you think the C7 bayonet is crap? Its stronger and better steel than the US equivilant. So what type of bayonet do you prefer for the C7 then?

Any bayonet when abused will break, as I have seen M9‘s snap in two, along with the M7 also.

Ack.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Slanker (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by corporal-cam:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Then explain exactly when and where your wear your cadpat?....


----------



## chrisp1j (11 Apr 2004)

In his house...does it matter?

The question is: is there any way to own CADPAT legally as an ordinary citizen?

The answer...no, as nothing is supposed to leave the system (they shred all the used CADPAT clothing, except helmet covers). 

But who will stop you really (unless some off-duty MP sees you, or you wear it to an armoury)?


----------



## chrisf (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
> [qb] I have seen CADPAT ruck covers sold here in shops still bearing the CDN NSN, etc on the tag and bag.
> [/qb]


I‘ve never actually seen one of these... perhaps they were acquired and never issued? Or have I just not seen them?



> [qb] Also CDN kevlar helmets with CADPAT covers too, and not single items but in qty, so I doubt if its hot.
> [/qb]


The kevlar helmets are issued to everyone, even new recruits, who are still issued the old olive-drab uniforms. As such, there‘s more of them being damaged and declared surplus.



> [qb] After being with some CDNs in 2002, I know they‘re pretty anal, not even trading for a bush hat, etc, so I know they are tight with their kit.
> [/qb]


As in the old bush-hat or the new hat? As there should be lots of the old ones floating around on the surplus market... as to the new one, it‘s an excellent hat... if they are anything like me, they weren‘t being anal, they just love their cadpat field hat!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2004)

chrisp1j,

How do YOU know they shred all used combats? Do you work there? Or just know some guy who knows someone else, who heard from someone.....


----------



## willy (11 Apr 2004)

There are certain articles of kit, mostly those considered to be attractive/gucci, for which the "replacement cost" you will be hit with upon loss will be substantially more than it actually costs to replace the item.  This policy was put in place to deter people from misappropriating kit.  One such item is the CADPAT field cap.  I saw a scale of issue list that included replacement costs on it one time, and if you lose your field cap, it ends up costing you about $90! (Now, that is from memory, and may be wrong, so I hope I don‘t annoy you too much by posting it, recceguy   ).  Half the reason I‘m still in the army is the replacement cost I‘m going to get hit with upon release for the bivy bag I lost as a Pte!  At any rate, the whopping replacement cost may well be why the soldiers in question didn‘t want to trade away their field caps.


----------



## chrisp1j (11 Apr 2004)

You‘re right, I did hear it from someone (very reputable mind you). 

You explain where it all goes then.


----------



## chrisf (11 Apr 2004)

Likely in a pile...

Everything always ends up in a pile somewhere... the only known natural enemy of the pile is a hole...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2004)

And the hole is usually the Base dump or Crown Assets


----------



## D-n-A (11 Apr 2004)

I saw on another form that the cadpat boonie is $17.63


----------



## willy (11 Apr 2004)

Well, I‘m not a bin rat, so I might be wrong.  If your form is right, then I‘m certainly suffering from a serious case of foot in mouth disease.  However, I definitely remember the $90ish figure because it was so ridiculously high.  Someone go lose their field cap so that we can set this straight.


----------



## MJP (11 Apr 2004)

I had several soldiers awhile ago that lost their cadpat hats in a wind storm and they were charged the ninety dollars.  We did a little digging and got the correct price from the base clothing IC and got the members reimbursed.  The ninety dollar figure was a mistake in the supply pricing system.  The 17 dollar figure is the correct price for the hat.


----------



## willy (11 Apr 2004)

Whatdya know.  It did seem a bit high.  Nonetheless, they do sometimes charge you more for gucci items.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2004)

willy,
You‘re right. It‘s standard practice for attractive items. Eg: Binos in the system $500.00, from the manufactures web site $150.00, the retailer around the corner from the armouries wanted $185.00 (prices are general, this was a few years ago)


----------



## Korus (11 Apr 2004)

This thread peaked my interest, so I did a search on E-bay...

You can now buy your very own CADPAT bushcap, much like the one I have packed away in my webbing right now, for the low low price of $93CAN plus shipping! Or, you can avoid anyone outbidding you by paying the lump sum of $120 CAN.   

 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2237605348&category=36071 

No bids on it yet, though... 

Hah, no way, for only $40 of your hard earned money, you can buy a fleece cadpat balaclava!

oohh, you can even buy the fabric itself.. 
 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2237519711&category=36077


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Apr 2004)

Well someone from Montreal (perhaps someone working at the supply depot there) is selling the real CADPAT shirt (they just put the candian flag on to the velcro name tape part)   http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2236952973&category=36068 

and someone from the states is selling real ones here  http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2236968300&category=36077 
and here  http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2236968552&category=36077


----------



## jasonin20020 (11 Apr 2004)

i work at clothing stores and the cost of the bush cap is 88 dollars


----------



## MJP (11 Apr 2004)

Jason I would check again....your just listing off a price that you are given without doing any research.  I have personlly been affected by the $90 bush cap(as have several of my soldiers).  We questioned it and the price list that most clothing stores have it at is WRONG.  Maybe you should use some initiative and staff it up to your chain that there is a mistake in the price list itself.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Apr 2004)

I can confirm MJP‘s comment about the price differnce.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2004)

Listen in... go to www.ebay.com and type in CADPAT. Sure there is alot of non-issue items, but there is everything from issue shirts to hats to rank slip ons too, all CADPAT.

you name it ebays‘s got it. I typed in m18 claymore and heaps of stuff came up. Tyr grenade or rpg7 too.

Its a weird world!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## portcullisguy (12 Apr 2004)

But I think we all sorted out by now that, unless it has been disposed of by the Crown through the appropriate means (ie, declared surplus and sold to the public through the appropriate government agency), there is no legal ownership of CADPAT outside of the CF.

Just because it‘s on ebay or buddy‘s surplus store, doesn‘t mean it got there the right way.

If it were OD green combats we were talking about, then it would be different ... that‘s been around for years and we all know there‘s tons of it that has been sold off to the public as surplus stores.  But CADPAT has only been around for a little while, and I am not convinced that the CF is ready to start shovelling it out as surplus just yet, since they can‘t even kit everyone out fully with it yet.  I only got my CADPAT three weeks ago, and I‘ve been in 2 years.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2004)

MJP, I can substantiate your 17 dollar price as well.  I was in your battalion when the RSM flipped because guys were chopping the bush cap brims down.  My buddy had to buy one, and he payed under 20 bucks for the thing.


----------



## Thompson_JM (12 Apr 2004)

one of the bin rats in my unit offered up this explination to me. 

originaly when the new CADPAT bush caps came in the replacement cost was something like 90 bucks so people wouldnt sell them off to surplus stores, they have since droped in cost. 

mind you this is not the word of god here. just what one Cpl said to me. mind you he‘s been a sup tech for about 13 years or more


----------



## jasonin20020 (12 Apr 2004)

MJP
if you know a bin rat ask to see a printout of your docs, in mims its R,CDB121A the prices are on the right hand side, or go thru the CGCM and it also tells you the price i believe, havent gotten really into the CGCM in a while thou, so dont quote me on it


----------



## kaspacanada (13 Apr 2004)

It doesn‘t surprise me to see that uniform on ebay.  I was re-issued kit this year from stores in St. Jean because I had to hand in my kit from the reserves, quit the reserves, in order to re-enroll under ROTP.  When I handed in my uniform, it was what we see in the first link posted on page one of this thread.  

The uniform I have now, is different in the respect that the buttons that you see, are covered on the new versions of the uniform.  Some bright person somewhere realized that the buttons heat up in the sunlight, and can be easily spotted using IR technology, thus defeating the purpose of all the expensive fabric treatments.  So the new versions have covers for the buttons on the front and the pockets.  My theory is that they are phasing the old CADPAT out as surplus. 

As for mixing it up with the Marine uniforms, who cares...they‘re not ours, and the colours are distinctly different (uglier I might say, but whatever)


----------



## willy (13 Apr 2004)

1.  They aren‘t phasing out anything.  At least I hope they aren‘t, because it would be a pretty stupid thing to do at this point.  CADPAT has yet to be issued to a number of units, and most bases have such a limited quantity in stock that returns or exchanges are severely curtailed at this time.  

2.  The "new" CADPAT with button covers was designed by and for the Air Force, because of their desire to limit the chances of having buttons come off and fly around on airfields, causing damage.  It had nothing to do with buttons heating up.  It‘s just a matter of luck whether you get the older version or the newer, and you‘re going to see uncovered buttons for a long time to come.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet (13 Apr 2004)

I know of several civis with issued CADPAT Tac Vests and desert cadpat. How do I know it is issued? Well he even has the manual.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2004)

Any civi that has the new CADPAT tac vest is in possesion of stolen property no matter how he got (ebay, army friend, soldier.). The only exception would be someone who went to the manufacturer in Hamilton, and got it from them.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Apr 2004)

I think you are wrong Falcon, as the CADPAT stuff is here too with NSN and all.

For reasons unknown stuff ends up being sold off, sometimes new and never issued.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Gryphon (14 Apr 2004)

And here i was thinking that they finally decided to give us sigs a break, and help us prevent from getting tangled in the Cam netting


----------



## kaspacanada (15 Apr 2004)

Willy, I have no idea really, and that wasn‘t what I was told by another officer.  But then again, he didn‘t have anything to do with the designs and he may have just been speculating as well.  Can you confirm what you say there or can anyone else confirm it?  It‘s not that I don‘t believe you, I am interested in it for my own reasons.


----------



## willy (15 Apr 2004)

I can‘t find a link for it at the moment, but the button flap CADPAT was a part of the same Air Force program that developed the groundcrew jacket.  For those who haven‘t seen this thing, it‘s a CADPAT goretex jacket that a lot of people think is the next generation rainjacket.  It isn‘t.  It was designed solely for Air Force use, and has a lot of things on it that you probably wouldn‘t want as an Army user, like reflective strips so that aircraft don‘t land on you or something.  From what I understand, the Air Force and Army are now working together on such projects so as to develop commonly acceptable kit.  That‘s why we are starting to get button flap combats now.  It would be nice to think that we‘re getting them so as not to get caught in cam nets, like Sig Op said, but I don‘t think that‘s the case.

I also don‘t think it has anything to do with a heat signature coming off the buttons.  Wouldn‘t that kind of signature be visible only at night?  How are the buttons going to get hot at night, when there‘s no sun to warm them?


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by KeV:
> [qb] They‘re probably fake since selling real CADPAT is illegal.
> 
> There are many places where you can buy fake CADPAT. Like this store:
> ...


The CADPAT on that website has the real features and is IR treated.....how is that fake?


----------



## Excolis (27 Apr 2004)

there are tons of canadian **** on ebay.. the gortwex jackets are going for like 450 us...  i think these people should be prosecuted


----------



## D-n-A (27 Apr 2004)

On one of the airsoft forums I go to CADPAT uniforms, boonie hats, helmets, etc come up for sale every now an then.


----------



## CI Dumaran (28 Apr 2004)

There are tons of Prototype and other early Mk of CADPAT gear on the surplus market. Released by Crown Properties at auction.

An acquaintence of mine has all the CADPAT kit in the world, he is not a CF member... even CADPAT AR... THe explanation.

His mother is the Director/Officer IC for the evaluation of new CF gear. I begged him to allow me to pay ridiculous amounts of money to him for some of his gear but his mother would have non of that. 

The only place you will get introuble would be on a CFB and an MP catches you in possession of illicit CADPAT items. Other than that.

There is a huge proliforation of CADPAT gear that is CIVI and largely resembles CF issue. So, I guess it would be somewhat hard to enforce an regulation on CADPAT gear. 
We all know that there are some "lax with paper" QM staff that let some of this stuff out.

I had, in my possession a CADPAT Gortex parka on base, and during a kit check I had it confiscated. Since I was not entitled one I did notget it back. BOO URNS!

Well, I was peeved.


----------



## CI Dumaran (28 Apr 2004)

There companies that are in possession of CADPAT like material, but yes, without authorization they cannot distribute issued type CADPAT.

Most CADPAT CIVI are frontenac crap or Cordura. Frontenac is bound by contract to the CF so it must abide by the clauses set forth.

The only issued CADPAT on ebay is frontenac crap.
The sweater, the rain coat, the smock, and most of the other gear or clothing is definately repros. THe only thing that I have seen that is real is the CADPAT slip-ons and sometimes the over priced WBCH (Boonie).


----------



## D-n-A (28 Apr 2004)

CI Phlipster, every now an then(when CADPAT first came out, Ebay was loaded with it) you will find real Issue cadpat, they even come with the manuels(like the tac vest)


a quick search on ebay.ca and I found these items(only listing a few, theres to much cadpat kit on ebay to list it all here)

Helmet with CADPAT cam cover
 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36068&item=2240865386&rd=1 

CADPAT Boonie Hat
 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36068&item=2240975672&rd=1 

Slip Ons
 http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36068&item=2241323941&rd=1


----------



## Dorod (3 May 2004)

Just a little history on the development of the CADPAT project.  I personally was involved in the second round of trials for the Air Force.  During round one, it came to the attention of the CDS that the Army and the Air Force were looking at the same patterns for a new working uniform.  So the two projects were told to combine.  The biggest problem for the Air Force was the requirement for anti-FOD (Foreign Object Damage) pockets and a material that is anti-static. 

The Air Force pockets were originally flat and closed with Velcro, but the Army didn't like the Velcro for very obvious reasons. So a compromise was made with covered buttons.

As for the uncovered button CADPAT that are currently being issued, it was an interm operational issue.

The new issue is to start with in the next three months, with 19 Wing Comox as the test issue site.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 May 2004)

We have already started getting covered buttons.


----------



## Dorod (3 May 2004)

I beleave that the issue only applies to Bases/Wings/Units that have not as of yet  recieved their first issue. Even on my Wing I have seen support people how have been on deployment over sea with part of both on, ie. covered button shirt and uncovered button pants.


----------



## 48Highlander (3 May 2004)

I got my full mk2 CADPAT january.  3 sets, all with the covered pckets.  the guys who went over to afghanistan came back with the mk1 version.  go figure.


----------



## primer (3 May 2004)

Well back to Crown Assets. I Been too there sales and have seen more Kit that you would dream off. From Gortex Jackets,Boots.Lots of OD CBTS I have seen LBVs in OD green. There seems to be very little Cadpat uniforms but yes its starting to go Crown Assets. Its upto Base R&D to destroy this stuff but they are not. That why you are starting to see it on EBAY.

The Best Bid Wins::


----------



## CI Dumaran (3 May 2004)

The huge majority of CADPAT on ebay are frontenac(fake).

about 98%. The majority of real CADPAT is only the boonie.

Why risk owning issued gear and get caught...

Convert your frontenacs to like-issued condition...

I‘l post a photo of myfrontenacs that I hemmed and converted to issued like state.


----------



## IceHawk (4 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Tpr.Orange:
> [qb] The fake cadpat isn‘t based on the NANO pixle design surrounding a maple leaf
> 
> 
> that is how you know if the cadpat is real. Cadpat is based around a maple leaf design and the MARPAT used by marines is based around there logo of the eagle on a globe. Its extremely hard to spot but thats how you tell. [/qb]


What the **** are you talking about?!? MARPAT is not based around the eagle and globe logo, I would know, my cousin is a marine and he‘s shown me his MARPAT uniform.(very cool I might add but I don‘t like the elastic waist thing)  They do have however, small eagle and globe logos clearly embedded throughout the fabric and CADPAT is not based around some maple leaf design either.  A complex computer algorythm loosly based on many many digital pictures of common terrain is what produces the pattern.  The algorythm for CADPAT is owned by the Canadian Government, hence the reason the Americans had to develope their own design and colour scheme.  CADPAT material is available for sale to/by a select few licenced textile companies and the Canadian government gets a share of the proceeds on non military CADPAT sales.  It is illegal for those select textile companies or anyone to produce current issue military clothes or kit in CADPAT for civilian consumption however they do produce "look alikes" with the authentic CADPAT material.  For example, the CADPAT pants for sale at most surplus stores are clearly made with real CADPAT material but they don‘t have re-enforced knees and butt, or metal zippers etc. etc.  Any soldier on this forum could easily see the differences between issued and bought CADPAT clothing if they were to go to a surplus store even though the material/pattern is the same.  As for you Tpr. Orange, I suggest you do a lot more reading on CADPAT and MARPAT before you post such obviously ill-informed replies.

I did have a more official site to dispell Trp. Orange‘s all too common false views but I seem to have lost the link, however if you look at the large MARPAT example about halfway down the page in the following website,  http://www.mcaroy.com/cadpat.htm 
you will see in the bottom left corner a small green marine logo in the middle of a brown blotch.  It is not pixallated like the rest of the pattern but a clear small logo and you can even almost make out the USMC letters.

I‘ll look for that website since it was more detailed and I‘ll post it if you guys are still interested.


----------



## sguido (2 Jul 2004)

I'd like to chime in on this matter:

It *is not* illegal for any person to possess Cadpat items.

It *is* illegal to possess stolen Cadpat items.

It *is* illegal for a store to sell brand new Canadian Forces issue/spec items that they have purchased from the CF's supplier.

It *is not* illegal for a store to sell brand new CF issue items that they have purchased as surplus from the CF.

So...if you go on EBay or whatever, and purchase stolen goods...that's bad.  You may be charged with possession of property obtained by crime.  If you purchased it from a person or store that bought it as surplus from the CF, you have just paid a lot of money for something that will be available much cheaper in the future.

Seeing as how there is no law that states you have to carry a receipt for clothes that you're actually wearing, it is extremely unlikely that you will get in trouble for wearing Cadpat.  Now, if you go on a CF base/station/detachment/whatever...that's a different story, as you're voluntarily on the base and are subject to the local rules & regs.

How does something get listed as surplus, and how come brand new stuff is showing up?  Well, when it comes to new items, be they gadgets or clothes or whatever, we want to see if we can get a better deal from the manufacturer by generating further sales.  If the allies buys the stuff too, the price goes down.  So how do we get them interested?  By giving some 'evaluation' items to our allies, for their own, internal R&D.  So, the UK gets, say, 50 sets of Cadpat to put through the paces to see if they would like it.  Maybe their R&D guys have already gotten some through...er..."trading", and have decided that they don't want anything to do with it.  Bam!  50 sets of Cadpat are now available for the retail public.  (R&D, or R&E people have all the fun, and are the best "traders" in military, police, or fire department circles, bar none.  Granted...some projects suck...like, let's try the new vegetarian and tofu IMP...)

Whaaa!  We don't have our stuff yet...how come Ottawa is giving it to the US, UK, etc?

Heh.  Welcome to procurement practices.  If we *might* be able to get the price down, just by giving away a few hundred sets, it's worth it in the long run.  Short term losses *may* equal long term savings.

Don't get me wrong, though.  I think it's criminal that Arid Cadpat was not available for Afghan bound troops.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jul 2004)

CI Phlipster said:
			
		

> I had, in my possession a CADPAT Gortex parka on base, and during a kit check I had it confiscated. Since I was not entitled one I did notget it back. BOO URNS!
> 
> Well, I was peeved.



And you expect us to be sympathetic?  That was pretty stupid!


----------



## brihard (3 Jul 2004)

I was a bit miffed when I went into CFB Kignston clothing stores tog et my CADPAt (I'm an infantry reservist, and only recently got it. I'm doing my SQ right now, and BIQ later in the summer). I got three pants with the covered pockets, and three shirts with the uncovered ones. I grimaced, and mentioned to the supply private that I'd probably get jacked up for mixing Mk 1 and Mk 2, but he told me to just say 'kit deficiency' and tell them that's what I was issued. Anyway, happy ending, my course has less of the petty BS than I expected, adn I haven't been jacked up for the mix. I still hope to swap my shirts for covered ones at some point, though I realize the chances of pulling that off for the near future are slim.

About CADPAT in general, the brand new recruits into the reserves are getting it now. There's a whole BMQ course going at CFB Kingston right now is wearing it. That's actually kind of funny, since a few of the people on the SQ course with me, mostly hose from the Brock Rifles, are still in OD greens. Unfortunately, their unit neglected to sign them up for the MIMS system, so they can't draw it from the CFB Kingston stores. Either way, they'll be QL3 qualified at the end of the summer regardless, so they'll get all the great kit, IECS, etc. I got lucky when I went in to stores- I got my wet weather boots, goretex glvoes (OD cuffs, not CADPAT), new sock system, etc. The socks especialyl are great. I value them as much as any of my gear. Whoever designed the sock system is a bloody genius...


----------



## Ranger Al (21 Oct 2004)

Lol, I've never been beat up and the closest I've come to being beat up was being punched once and before I had a chance to punch back about 40 people swarmed the other guy and did it for me, I guess I'm just that well liked      And I said I wanted to be a soldier, I said nothing about being a commando and the fact that you would jump on me leads me to believe you have some deep seeded psycological problems, maybe from you being beat up as a kid. Anyways this is way off topic, if anyone wants to make strange accusations towards my popularity then send an IM so the rest of us can deiscuse the legal sale of CADPATS. [/qb]Then explain exactly when and where your wear your cadpat?....

Well, even if he is an air cadet, they still take part in survival training (aka Aircrew Survival), as sea cadets take part in a similar training. Both events are meant to prepare them , the cadet, for situations that could possibly occur in their training. You're probly asking "That doesn't explain why they would wear combats, especially Cadpats"; however, since the cadet program in general is meant to promont an intrest in the military it would seem natural that people in this program would like to look like the people they admire and wish to become someday. Not to mention the fact that combats are the ideal clothes for these "survival" situations. 

Now, those of you that think only military personal should have Cadpats, whats exactly is your problem? I have no problem seeing a civilain in combats, in OD's or CadPats (as long as they are not stolen). Ask yourself  exactly why you dont like others wearing it. It's not as if the majority walk around all the time in them. Most people have them for situations where they come in handy, such as hunting, camping, war games (paint-ball), and beat-a-round clothes. 

Just a question or two, those of you that complain about others (civis) wearing cadpats, have you been issued any yet? Do you have any problem with civis wearing OD's? What exactly is the difference between OD's and Cadpats? They are both standard issue, for now. 

Another point, if you get upset about civi's wearing combats, do any of you have any sports jerseys? I know its not the same thing, but its the same idea; if you see a cadet wearing combats (OD's Or Cadpats) why dont you feel proud instead of jealous or upset? This kid is probly looking up to you, wishing, someday, to be like you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2004)

Ranger Al said:
			
		

> Just a question or two, those of you that complain about others (civis) wearing cadpats, have you been issued any yet? Do you have any problem with civis wearing OD's? What exactly is the difference between OD's and Cadpats? They are both standard issue, for now.
> 
> Another point, if you get upset about civi's wearing combats, do any of you have any sports jerseys? I know its not the same thing, but its the same idea; if you see a cadet wearing combats (OD's Or Cadpats) why dont you feel proud instead of jealous or upset? This kid is probly looking up to you, wishing, someday, to be like you.




Your right, sport jerseys are not the same thing. I don't care about someone being mistaken for a sports player. I don't care about Cadets in uniform as long as it's worn properly. What I do have a problem with is a dorky, slovenly civvie prancing around in a uniform. The first thing people think about when they see that is the military, some don't realize he's just a goof with misplaced priorities.


----------



## Ranger Al (24 Oct 2004)

Now that I agree with. I have no problem with civis waering any combats, as long as it is worn properly, and they are respectable. People really do automaticly assume someone is in the military when they see the combats; and that is diffently something to get pissed at. It pisses me off when i see a civi in combats acting like an ass, but what i truly dissagree with is the way people shoot-off about cadpat being in surplus and they havent got it yet. It's not so bad now, as that most places are issued cadpat, I believe some reserveist are still waiting. It's a fairly slow process, but as the CF motto goes; "Hurry up, and wait!"


----------



## Gayson (26 Oct 2004)

Personally I dont believe cadets should be getting CADPAT.
It's likely that their are people in the CF who still have OD's, give them the CADPAT first.


As for civies walking around in combats.  It really depends on the situation.  I have seen tradesmen, fishermen, campers where the old OD pants because they serve those purposes well.  If it's OD's than it's not really a big deal.

As for cadpat, your not going to see as many civies wearing that as OD (at least I haven't) so it's not really a big deal right now.  The average person who sees someone wearing a cadpat shirt with a pair of jeans is just going to think they are a goof before thinking poorly of the army.  Aslong as we dont have people impersonating soldiers from the PPCLI, in the subway claiming they faught in afghanistan, than we really dont have a big problem.


----------



## bossi (26 Oct 2004)

Hats off to Franko!  His gut instinct was right ...



			
				Franko said:
			
		

> Probably a leak in the supply chain. Can't see it being a soldier who is actually responsable for his kit. At least not in that quantity.



http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmo....html?id=519bf705-bbb1-4883-a90c-d7df543ee3f0

State-of-the-art uniforms sold by mistake
Jim Farrell 
The Edmonton Journal, 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


----------



## foerestedwarrior (26 Oct 2004)

They should pay him what he paid, nothing more.


----------



## Pet_Bailey (28 Oct 2004)

Ya it is probly the kiddy cadpat


----------



## condor888000 (28 Oct 2004)

No it's the real stuff.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (7 Nov 2004)

I was just speaking on an Airsoft message board, and some guys were talking about buying the CF Tac Vest.  I mentioned it being illegal to sell such an item, and one invidual said the guy selling it had, and I quote, "paper work to show that the CF had in fact approved the sale of those items to him, and that paperwork has been verified to be authentic."

Just wondering if it's possible?


----------



## bossi (7 Nov 2004)

If that's true, then the guy selling it won't mind providing a copy of the paperwork ... right?  Seeing is believing.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (8 Nov 2004)

I asked for the samew thing (a link to it scanned or something) but was told that it was "verified by someone on the forum"
It didn't make much sense...I was wondering if it was at all possible.


----------



## DJ_Overload (23 Nov 2004)

Good Day,

   I don't want to start off by stepping on peoples toes, and I have to go back a few posts to get back on this topic but: 
   
   As far as I am aware (as a Supply Tech) all items that are CADPAT(TW)or(AR) are CTAT and if/when deemed surplus and or non serviceable they are to be destroyed through CADC(Crown Assets) and thus any Legit supply Item of CADPAT that is out there in possession or being sold by any person is illegal, Keeping in mind that there are a few (very few) companies that are authorized by DND to produce CADPAT items. And I have seen my self several very good knockoffs. Back to the CTAT, I have been out of the clothing loop for some time now and this may have changed, but I would likely doubt it.

   On the topic of the Air Cadet owning/wearing what he claims to be the "real deal" CADPAT, well I would like to say the following in hopes that he does not take offence. Being a former Cadet my self I know what the feeling is like to want to wear the latest and newest kit on field exercises, and in all actuality back in my day (lol like it was long ago) my Old Squadron encouraged it. But, I have read I don't remember if it was the QR&O's Cadets or the CATO's Vol ? But I know I read specifically that CADPAT was *NOT*to be worn by any Cadet at anytime while acting as a Cadet. Now if he is wearing them for his own leisure activities well, I'm not and MP or a JAG but I would say if they are the "real deal" then yes because of the strict control and disposal of these items they are illegal. And if he is wearing them on Cadet exercises then the own is his on his Leadership and him self to enforce the rules and regulations governing the Canadian Cadet Movement. (and I must say he has better connections then me lol)

Hope None Are/Were Offended By This Post


----------



## Big Foot (23 Nov 2004)

I for one am getting sick and tired of seeing things like second generation CADPAT and tacvests and what not being sold on eBay. Not to sound like a whiner here but I figure I, even as a lowly RMC cadet, should have CADPAT before some guy can buy it off eBay. Same story with the tacvest. I don't even know when I will be receiving these items.  :rage: Just stupid I tell ya. Look at this: http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36071&item=2287543067&rd=1 Just out of curiosity, how many of us here in Reg or Res haven't received a tacvest? I for one haven't.


----------



## bossi (24 Nov 2004)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> ... Just out of curiosity, how many of us here in Reg or Res haven't received a tacvest? I for one haven't.



When we were kitted out for Op ATHENA Roto 0 we had to turn in our webbing in order to get the new tac vest - so, I cut my name tags off of everything and handed it all in ... (can you see what's coming next ... ?)

Yup - you guessed it - the story is that there aren't enough for Roto 3, so ... I have to turn in my vest ... there's no way on Earth I'd even contemplate blading anybody going on Roto ...
(hmmm ... I wonder how much gun tape it'll take to rig up my duffle bag to look like a vest next time I go to the field ...)


----------



## Big Foot (24 Nov 2004)

and that raises the question, why the hell are there tacvests being sold on ebay?


----------



## buffalo-bill- (20 Jan 2005)

Hi folks;

I'm a law student with no real experience in the Military but am writing part of an analysis on Military Law out of interest for the special nature of it all. I realize that there are tons of topics with "CaDPat" as a subject - but need some expertise as it pertains to the actual letter of the law.

There has been mention in other topics of 'charges' being laid against soldiers and civilians for selling and possessing CaDPat. I can't find anything in the National Defence Act, which is the parliamentary act that gives power to the military justice system to enforce certain laws. I can't find any orders in council, and I can't find any recent amendments to the Queen's Regulations. Can somebody please let me know how this works? Under what authority is a civilian or member charged for possessing Cadpat if no law exists? Perhaps an officer with actual powers of punishment or the authority to lay charges can describe, for me, _*what they quote on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings?*_

To give some background: I read an article in the newspaper about a place in Morinville, AB selling genuine CaDPat. I suppose that it had caused quite a stir in some Albertan circles. When I called the retailer, he had mentioned that it was not, infact, part of the legal system and that hunters are totally entitled to it if they can get it but that the military apparently 'burns' it now. After this retailer sells off its stock, that'll be it.

Would somebody give me a bit of help here? Can anybody provide me with an actual law (besides the obvious and horribly outdated Criminal Code violation which is rarely, if ever, enforced and for which I can find no case law)? 

Tons of thanks in advance.

BMP


----------



## Greasyoldman (20 Jan 2005)

Well, I can even come close to answering your questions.. but here's the website of a local company that sells CadPat bags and whatnot.. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say they're legit because Canex has been selling their products for quiet some time now. They may be able to give you an answer.. 

http://www.wheelersonline.com/

Ty


----------



## hammond (20 Jan 2005)

Hey Bill
  I did an independent study for my grade 12 law class ( i know its nothing compared to law school) on the Canadian Military Justice system, i am not quite sure, but I would search the Queen's Regulations and Orders. I believe that is what its called http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/intro_e.asp  as well another document that actually would probably yield better results is the Canadian Forces Code of Conduct http://www.dnd.ca/jag/training/publications/code_of_conduct/Code_of_Conduct_e.pdf

I believe the reason the Canadian Forces burns its cadpat is due to the infrared defeating technology.  Unfortunately I have no reference to this, and cant back it up, and I am not part of the CF, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Hope that information helps - Hammond


----------



## Gayson (20 Jan 2005)

I always thought that cadpat clothing found in stores was real cadpat material scrap.  The only difference is that the scrap was never treated with the IR coating.


----------



## hammond (20 Jan 2005)

The CADPAT found in most shops or Frontenac's as they are becoming known as seem to have quite a few differences, I believe upon closer look they colours are not exactly that of CF CADPAT as well the size of the pixels differ, and instead of the epaulet being located on the chest there are two on each of the shoulders like the OD CBT's. If i recall correctly i believe the breast pockets are straight as well and not slanted as on the real CADPATS. Been along time since I've seen a pair.


----------



## chrisf (21 Jan 2005)

The frontenacs are made of real cadpat.

Here's the legality/illegality of owning/selling cadpat as I understand it, and I believe I have a fairly clear understanding, there may be a few mistakes...

The issues aren't rooted in military law, but rather in civillian copy-right law.

There's a copyright on CadPat. Either the Canadian army owns the copyright or leases from whoever owns it for it's manufacturers. Either way, it's copyrighted. You can't produce or sell CadPat fabric without the consent of the Canadian army. There are a number of manufacturers with this consent (Wheelers is one of them).

The "legal" rumors arise from the fact that supposedly the military doesn't sell it's damaged cadpat equipment as surplus, rather, it's destroyed. Meaning that any that was for sale had to have been stolen from crown assets... a few ratty pairs of pants that were going to be burned anyway disapearing may not seem like a major issue on the surface, but it's theft none-the-less, and the only way the stuff "disapears" out of inventory is via a supply tech with sticky fingers... if the supply tech is willing to steal *anything*, scrap or otherwise, they are un-trustworthy, so it becomes a very serious issue...

Admitedly, small amounts may have slipped out by accident, mixed with other surplus items (Or more notably, 2000 scrap uniforms accidentally sold to a dealer), and simply not been noticed, so not all cadpat surplus was nessascarily stolen property, but much was. The most common surplus item available seems to be the cadpat helmet covers, as they often accompany the helmets when sold for scrap.

Regarding the IR properties, this is nonsense... the uniforms are treated with an IR coating, yes, but as I understand it, it wears off, by the time most of the uniforms are ready for the scrap pile, the IR coating is good and well gone.

Why are the uniforms destroyed instead of being sold? I have no idea. Stupid paranoia about the IR properties? Copyrights? I don't know. But I think I've covered the legalities of owning cadpat fairly well. It's all about copyright and property laws.


----------



## Love793 (22 Jan 2005)

Sect 130, NDA.  Offence contrary to the CCC.

CCC- Possesion/Theft/Sale of Queens Stores
     - Impersonating a member of an Armed Service


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2005)

Impersonation of a memeber of the armed forces would only apply if the person was actively trying to impersonate a member of the armed forces... wearing rank/insignia and such... a duck hunter buying a cadpat shirt because it's an excellent cam pattern is clearly not an attempt at impersonation, an air-softer wearing a full uniform and slip-ons they picked up at the surplus shop is... and as far as I'm concerned any time they do it off their private property (If you want to dress up and play army in your basement, who cares? But don't present an image to the public...), they should be fined for it...


----------



## Love793 (22 Jan 2005)

I agree however the CCC says a little bit different.


----------



## S McKee (22 Jan 2005)

buffalo-bill- said:
			
		

> Hi folks;
> 
> I'm a law student with no real experience in the Military but am writing part of an analysis on Military Law out of interest for the special nature of it all. I realize that there are tons of topics with "CaDPat" as a subject - but need some expertise as it pertains to the actual letter of the law.
> 
> ...




Buffalo Bill in order to get a definitive answer to your question you should contact a local JAG officer, they would be more than happy to help you out if you tell them who you are.


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> I agree however the CCC says a little bit different.



I'm curious, I've read the particular section before (I've read much of the criminal code as sad as that may be), but I can't seem to find the particular section at the moment... you wouldn't happen to know the reference for it would you?


----------



## Love793 (22 Jan 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm curious, I've read the particular section before (I've read much of the criminal code as sad as that may be), but I can't seem to find the particular section at the moment... you wouldn't happen to know the reference for it would you?



CCC Sect 419, Sect 420


----------



## chrisf (22 Jan 2005)

Thanks, just curious about the actual wording...

Of particular relevance to people dressing up and playing soldier...

"(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,"

I'd interpret that to mean that you're perfectly allowed to wear surplus clothing until it reaches a point where you could reasonably be mistaken for a member of the Canadian armed forces...

Red Green wearing a surplus parka, not a crime.

Airsoft player wearing a full uniform, crime.

A thought... perhaps if we were to actively prosecute people for it, having them fined, we could solve budgetary problems?


----------



## Love793 (23 Jan 2005)

lol, if know one take offence to it, usually there's no prob.  I've only seen it happen a couple of times (outside of the ice storm), usually it involves some smart ass kid and a cop looking to hold him for something.


----------



## Kurhaus (18 Feb 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Thanks, just curious about the actual wording...
> 
> Of particular relevance to people dressing up and playing soldier...
> 
> ...



Just a point but you neglected the most important part of CCC Section 419:

"419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,"

Even the Reg/Res force members who are issued this kit, by this definition, are not allowed to wear their CAPAT while playing paint ball, unless it is a DND sponsored event (i.e. Adventure Training etc.)


----------



## Thompson_JM (23 Feb 2005)

Personally Ive got a set of Surplus O.D.'s that I would and Do use for paintball.. When I'm playing Paintball I'm on leasure Time, and the last thing i want is everyone staring at me while I'm wearing CADPAT... especially at Sgt. Splatters which is an indoor range Downtown T.O. 

IMHO the need for an effective Temperate Camouflage pattern become greatly diminished when one is indoors in a darkened warehouse.


Cheers
    Josh


----------



## brihard (24 Feb 2005)

OK, so does removing rank and the velcro flag differentiate it enough that it won't be considered 'impersonation' of the CF? Generally at a paintball or airsoft palce, camo clothing is so common that people will just assume you picked up your issued CADPAT surplus, as even the real stuff can be found these days. Added to that, very few people outside the military can actually tell the difference between issue, and the Frontenac stuff. So where exactly is the line drawn?


----------



## CEL (1 Mar 2005)

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 .....


----------



## DJ_Overload (11 Mar 2005)

CEL ~ thanks for claifying... Like I said I have been out of the clothing world for a while now... well supply in general to be exact... anyways just wanted to take a sec to say thanks.


----------



## foxtwo (31 May 2005)

Just curious, what would happen if a Cadet of any element got their hands on a pair of real, look-alikes or altered. If they were wearing their eppilate and headdress with it, would it still be considered impersonation?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Jun 2005)

That may well be true, but unless there is a cadet identifier on the uniform (usually a brassard), it is technically illegal.  Cadets are civilians.

From the Criminal Code - just to be clear:

_419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,

(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or

(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction_


----------



## Uberman (1 Jun 2005)

A couple of things are interesting about this section of the Code:

1. The offense has a reverse onus,this is a rarity in the criminal law as it flies in the face of presumption of innocence. This one requires the accused to be able to show that he/she had some lawful authority to wear the uniform. Real tough to do unless you're a member of a military organization. Also, as with any reverse onus, the accused's right to remain silent is, for all intents and purposes, gone. 

2. The offense applies not only to Canadian Forces uniforms but to any other naval, army or air force uniform or any uniform that is likely to be mistaken therefor. This means that wearing a U.S. uniform or any other nationality's military uniform, would be illegal. So the offense isn't primarily aimed at obtaining/using/wearing Canadian issue uniforms but one of wearing any military uniform. So it's safe to assume that this particular law doesn't care were you got the uniform. 

3. The offense, insofar as those who wear parts of the uniform, who believe that removing something as technical as taking off a rank insignia or an identifier would mean that they are not technically wearing a CF or other uniform would be caught by the "likely to be mistaken for". This test would be an objective one using the reasonable person on the street. So the question is, "would a bunch of civillians likely mistake my clothing for being a military uniform." Also, and more importantly, this portion of the offense only requires that the outfit being worn "is likely to be mistaken for". This means that the offense is made out when the Crown prosecutor can establish, on a balance of probabilites that joe lunchbox would mistake what is being worn as a military uniform. This takes away the "beyond all reasonable doubt " and replaces it with the civil test of "balance of probabilities". 

I've never encountered this charge before. It seems like the type of charge that would only be laid where the community becomes alarmed and there is actual confusion. A good example would be wear someone obtains a military discount on lodging.


----------



## PViddy (7 Jun 2005)

> Just curious, what would happen if a Cadet of any element got their hands on a pair of real, look-alikes or altered. If they were wearing their eppilate and headdress with it, would it still be considered impersonation?



Foxtwo, i have said this before but you may want to do some CATO research.  cadets are not authorized to wear CADPAT or any form of look-a-like.

cheers

PV


----------



## condor888000 (7 Jun 2005)

Sir, do you have a referance for that? I've been looking high and low and can't seem to find one.........


----------



## PViddy (8 Jun 2005)

yep, no prob.  I have come across before but i will do some digging again and get back to you (at work right now   )

cheers 

PV


----------



## foxtwo (9 Jun 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Foxtwo, i have said this before but you may want to do some CATO research.   cadets are not authorized to wear CADPAT or any form of look-a-like.
> 
> cheers
> 
> PV



Wow... if you're accurate, then I know a LOT of people that are gonna be an a sticky situation!  :-\


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Jun 2005)

Clothe the Soldiers tell us that if it ain't marked as such it ain't real CADPAT, as stated earlier many non-IR coated, non CADPAT look-alikes exist.  Even Peacekeeper/CP Gear/Wheeler's do not cross the line toward pretending to be real CADPATTM.  Just because Canex sells it surely does not make it official DND Gear.  Anymore than the Army surplus comes from the Army.  Companies like Fellfab in Hamilton pay big bicks to use the TM trhough contracts with DND .http://www.fellfab.com/canada/military/index.shtml 

Also See Backgrounder http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=341:  Excerpt below.

"The patterns and technical data are patent and copyright protected. Also note that the Department of National Defence has acquired the trademark for CADPATTM. A number of Canadian companies have been successful in meeting the rigorous technical specifications for CADPATTM on specific textiles using both Canadian and overseas printing capabilities. The Department of National Defence closely controls CADPAT with all companies agreeing to non-disclosure stipulations for third parties and close control of swatches." 

For more information on The Clothe the Soldier Project visit http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cts


----------



## PViddy (10 Jun 2005)

After going through the CATO's and the QR (cadets) i have found that my mater of fact staement i made in an earlier post may have been misleading.  if you check the references which i have posted it appears that the wearing of CADPAT clothng and CADPAT look-a-like clothing is very much up to the CO of the unit....i think.

Every order appears to have a loop hole.  If anyone else would like to add to this, please do.  I am pretty sure their is an order against the wearing of, but i have not found it yet.  Cadets will note the CATO about wearing orange safety vests with any other camouflaged clothing other than the old OD's...however the golden phrase is "as required".  My unit does not allow the wearing of any type of combat clothing other than the, i don't wanna say old , OD's.  Anything *constructive* to be added would be of help.

regards

PV


----------



## condor888000 (10 Jun 2005)

I seem to recall hearing from my CO that there was an ERCO out about the wearing of CADPAT/digital camoflage patterns. I'll have a look around and see if I can find it. Only thing is it'd only apply to Eastern even if I do find it.

EDIT: English half of the site is down and I'm not so good with French so it might be a bit before I can find/not find the ERCO.


----------



## PViddy (10 Jun 2005)

Yea, i saw that their was an ERCO.  I am pretty sure their is a CRCO or CRCSO written somwhere around here (as i am from Ontario), when i find it i will post.  All i know is it is strongly discouraged around here.

PV


----------



## condor888000 (10 Jun 2005)

The sites up but I can't seem to find the order. I'll keep looking........darn ERCOs.................


----------



## foxtwo (12 Jun 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> if you check the references which i have posted it appears that the wearing of CADPAT clothng and CADPAT look-a-like clothing is very much up to the CO of the unit....i think.


According to a CI, my CO 'cleared them' meaning it was okay for us cadets to wear them on FTX's. Keep in mind that 80% of the CADPAT uniforms we have are Peacekeeper...


----------



## medic65726 (16 Jun 2005)

OMG.....someone should call the the "Royal Canadian Air Farce" as I'm sure someone would have issues with how they are dressed for the "chicken cannon" sketch at the end.
Just trying to lighten the mood.


----------



## Gunner98 (16 Jun 2005)

Peacekeeper is not a DND contractor, their disruptive pattern uniforms are not CADPAT, they are not created from the patented design, nor are they IR design.  If your CO/CI wants you to wear pink tutus it would be the same effect.   I say again just because Canex sells it that does not make it DND approved clothing (bus driver jackets and parkas have been sanctioned in dress manual.)

Legend has it that DND (or members thereof) have provided the Air Farce with proper dress and accoutrements.  If you are an avid fan of the show, you will have seen their uniforms evolve over time (including the switch from OD combats to "disruptive" pattern.

Whenever VIPs from the GG to PM to MPs visit units, they are often encouraged to fit in by dressing similarly.  Don't forget people such as Wayne Rostad and Ron MacLean are or have been recent Honorary Colonels of CF formations. Having the Air Farce using army surplus kit to immitate us, would be worse than dressing them properly and getting some interesting PR.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Jun 2005)

The Air Farce thing is more than rumour.  The show was provided with uniforms by Public Affairs.  It created a bit of a stink at the time as not all soldiers had received the uniform.  Here's the Maple Leaf article:

_TORONTO - Two CF members recently responded to a call out to assist the cast of the Royal Canadian Air Farce television show, with their long running and well-known "Chicken Cannon" sketch, which aired on CBC March 1.

Outfitted in the new CADPAT (Canadian Disruptive Pattern) uniforms, veteran cast members were joined by Sergeants Leigh Mathieson and Ernie Parolin from Director Land Requirements in Ottawa.

The chicken cannon, loaded with quiche, bologna, salmon, ice cream, whipped cream and a maraschino cherry, blasted a picture of the Olympic figure skating judges._

The uniforms have large "chicken cannon" patches to distinguish them from the real thing...

Never said I agreed with it, but there it is...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## hatch (13 Aug 2005)

One of the people im on course with had one of his cadpat shirts misplaced/stolen and was told that any cadpat items that you have to file a Lost Kit Report for were under investigation. So he cant even get a new shirt before SG05, oh well. I was issued my TacVest and CadPat Uniforms during the last training year (pre-winter). Is there still anyone out there without them?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (1 Nov 2005)

I thought there was a civvy version of cadpat for a reason. Are military issued cadpat uniforms allowed to be sold to civvies?


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

you can get the real Mccoy at the surplus stores.... it's washed out and worn out but it's there.

You can get the chinese knock offs from sporting goods stores & ebay

Believe that Frontenac also sells it's seconds to the surplus stores - direct.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (1 Nov 2005)

Oh. I was just wondering if civvies were allowed to have the real thing... I saw a civvy walking around in one yesterday.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Nov 2005)

Armyvern has anwsered this one a few times, the stuff at the surplus store is NOT real Cadpat material, just the design.

If you can buy REAL Cadpat issued stuff than someone should be doing time......


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2005)

For the tenth time (at least):

Canadian Forces Cadpat material & Uniforms made from it are considered controlled goods  due to some unique properties built into the material design. The ONLY persons authorized to be in posession of or to handle controlled goods are Military personnel, civilian employees and contractor's etc who have undergone background checks and security clearances. There is a reason for this.

I refer you here:

The "Controlled Technology Access Transfer Regulations" (CTAT) which fall under the auspices of the "Defense Production Act" ie: FEDERAL LAW. 

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/3003/1_e.asp

"Under the Defence Production Act it is an offence for a person who is not registered under that Act to knowingly examine, possess or transfer a controlled good. The registration requirements do not apply to a person who occupies a position in the federal public service or a federal Crown Corporation, or is employed by Her Majesty in right of a province, who acts in good faith in the course of their duties and employment.

"Policy Statement 
*DND and the CF are committed to demonstrating responsiveness to, and responsibility for, all laws and regulations in respect of controlled goods*. 

Requirements
*DND and the CF must: 
ensure that all controlled goods are identified and afforded the necessary level of protection to prevent their unauthorized examination, possession or transfer; * *ensure that DND employees and CF members exercise due diligence and permit access to controlled goods only by persons so authorized under the Defence Production Act and the Controlled Goods Regulations*; and 
provide for reporting and investigation if the security of a controlled good is compromised in any way. 
Authority
Authority Table The following table identifies the authorities responsible for implementing the policy. 
The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS)
has the authority to direct that the management of controlled goods be included in business plans. 
ADM(Mat)
approve and administer policy for controlled goods."

Secondly,  A Criminal Code of Canada Offense:
It's called Impersonation:
Specifically, CCC Section 419 Impersonation:
"Everyone who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him:
(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefore,"

So being as how the MND & CDS' Policy (and therefore the Federal Governments) on the wearing of cadpat does not give lawful authority to civilians to posess or wear cadpat, anyone doing so (or anyone selling it on E-Bay etc) is acting in direct contradiction to the "Defense Production Act" and therefore is committing a Federal Offense.  CF personnel, DND civilian's and member's of contracting companies who have been "caught" selling surplus or faded, whole, wearable garments made with the actual Canadian Forces patented material (this is applicable only the actual CF cadpat material with our special little properties - not any regular material printed with the cadpat design) have been subjected to federal black marketeering charges. They are also subject to charges under the CTAT Regulations...not good as your security clearance dissappears...just like that. Those purchasers of these "CF Genuine" garments are also subject to Federal charges relating to the possession of black market goods, and if they happen to be a CF member, a federal employee or a federal contractor, are also subject to charges relating to CTAT.
  
Many many sites sell cadpat uniforms which look like ours but are NOT the genuine article. Most will also point this out on their web-sites...They will point out that this material, although of a 'cadpat design' is NOT the material used to produce the CF operational dress. It does not come with the "operational capabilities" that ours does. If it does, whoever is selling it is comitting a Federal Offense, and so is whoever is buying it. See an example and their disclaimer here:

http://www.wheelersonline.com/detail.asp?product_id=1010
Anybody and their dog with access to material, a computer and assorted green relish dyes can make a genuine "Cadpat pattern" but it is not "Genuine Cadpat material" because it does not incorporate our distict properties.....

Once again, if you are aware of the "Genuine Article" being made available for purchase to any non-authorized persons...you, if you are a member of the CF or the Federal Civil Service are obligated to report this as described in the CTAT link given above. ("provide for reporting and investigation if the security of a controlled good is compromised in any way.")

All cadpat going through CF R&D sections for disposal (either worn, NS or Suplus) is to be "certified as demilitarized" (ie shredded into useless material that would, and does, make fine helmet scrim) prior to it's being sold off as "scrap material."

I would suggest to you that if you do indeed happen to come across some genuine stuff on E-Bay, you take a print screen and forward to your MP's for investigation. Besides which, none of the stuff on E-Bay is legally obtained therefore why are you paying this thief your money when the poor kid he stole it from is probably one of your soldiers with the pending Stores Loss Report and MP Investigation?  What the seller actually deserves is one hell of a throat punch. Plain and simple.

Geo, The Frontenac comment about them selling cadpat greatly concerns me, as they are indeed a Federal Contractor and therefore subject to CTAT and all other applicable Federal Laws. If this is a fact, all I can say is WOW...how blatant, and that gives me something to address at work tomorrow (are you sure it is the actual cadpat??).

Now, for those of you out there who continue to PM me with sites and links on which you find what is described as the "Genuine article" made with "authentic CF Cadpat Material", I thank you, and I continue to send these up for invest, as it should be, when we have real soldier's going without!!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (2 Nov 2005)

Armyvern,

Before you go out whistleblowing on every ebay seller and manufacturers such as Frontenac, Dropzone Tactical and Wheeler's CP Gear, please be aware that DND does license possession, production and retailing of cadpat to the commercial market.  The provisions under which they grant the license are that:  The products being produced are not exact copies of CF issued clothing and equipment (hence why the Frontenac clothing's pattern is different than CF combats) and that the manufacturer be Canadian based, maintaining a Canadian production facility, employing Canadians.

This is from a very credible source in DND's Directorate of Intellectual Property office which handles all cadpat licenses.


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2005)

Actually have been invlved in a NIS investigation into CADPAT and CADPAT AR -- the material itself is NOT controlled - despite the IR coating.   It is however almost impossible to obtain w/o CF permission (that is manufacturers)

 Wearing CADPAT gear is fine for civies - as long as it is not worn with the intent to impersonate or otherwise imitate a CF member or officer.


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Armyvern,
> 
> Before you go out whistleblowing on every ebay seller and manufacturers such as Frontenac, Dropzone Tactical and Wheeler's CP Gear, please be aware that DND does license possession, production and retailing of cadpat to the commercial market.   The provisions under which they grant the license are that:   The products being produced are not exact copies of CF issued clothing and equipment (hence why the Frontenac clothing's pattern is different than CF combats) and that the manufacturer be Canadian based, maintaining a Canadian production facility, employing Canadians.
> 
> This is from a very credible source in DND's Directorate of Intellectual Property office which handles all cadpat licenses.



Agreed and I am aware of this...as per my post..it is the Unauthorized....

I did include this little bit in my post 
"(this is applicable only the actual CF cadpat material with our special little properties - not any regular material printed with the cadpat design)"

Hope this clarifies...

Vern


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Actually have been invlved in a NIS investigation into CADPAT and CADPAT AR -- the material itself is NOT controlled - despite the IR coating.   It is however almost impossible to obtain w/o CF permission (that is manufacturers)


 Me too. With CF permmission making one "authorized". Therefore the below is not applicable. When a usually non-authorized pers becomes "authorized" it is done in writing, and the authorized pers then becomes subject to the same CTAT Regs (as per their authorization) as the rest of us for controlling what he has been authorized to hold. 



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Wearing CADPAT gear is fine for civies - as long as it is not worn with the intent to impersonate or otherwise imitate a CF member or officer.


Wearing a cadpat design which does not have the IR capabilites is allowable for civilians etc. Civies who become "authorized" to wear the "CF material" uniform, become subject to CTAT as well. As an example, certain civilian visitors into AORs...this authority to issue to them, again comes in written form from NDHQ....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2005)

armyvern, why should we believe a single thing you've written when we can see the Chicken Cannon crew on CBC wearing it every week on Royal Canadian Air Farce?  They got theirs before many units of the Regular Force, never mind the Reserves...


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> armyvern, why should we believe a single thing you've written


Well I've quoted the Regulations...and provided the links to them as well...what more can one say? PS, I don't write the Regulations, perhaps you should address your disbelief of them to the CDS/NDHQ...



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> the Chicken Cannon crew on CBC wearing it every week on Royal Canadian Air Farce?   They got theirs before many units of the Regular Force, never mind the Reserves...


I believe that this issue with the RC Air Farce was previously addressed on another thread.... these uniforms were obtained by them quite a few years ago now...from a couple of over-eager Military pers who were "only trying to help"...it, and the "helpers" were addressed by the CF. And, apparently as CBC employess (thus falling under Federal guidelines, apparently it was decided that as they underwent 'security checks' they could retain them for on their comedy series. Read the link to CTAT that I have provided below and specifically to whom these regs are NOT applicable to, but what could happen to those same federal employees should they sell they turn around and sell them on E-bay or whatever to a non-authorized pers. It's all relative.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (2 Nov 2005)

Hummmmmmmmmmmmm!...

Anybody can buy Cadpad online... one of the is www.CPGear.com


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2005)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> Hummmmmmmmmmmmm!...
> Anybody can buy Cadpad online... one of the is www.CPGear.com



OK read the Title of this thread very very carefully...pay attention to detail. I thought that used to be rule #1 in the Military??

IE look at your pic...it is not a picture of military issue cadpat!! Look at the pockets on it!! Which I also clearly pointed out in my original post like this (using the exact same link as yourself by the way...):
Read the description.....for the item...that's why I posted it...

Many many sites sell cadpat uniforms which look like ours but are NOT the genuine article. Most will also point this out on their web-sites...They will point out that this material, although of a 'genuine cadpat pattern' is NOT the genuine cadpat material used to produce the CF operational dress. It does not come with the "operational capabilities" that ours does. If it does, whoever is selling it is comitting a Federal Offense, and so is whoever is buying it. See an example and their disclaimer here:
http://www.wheelersonline.com/detail.asp?product_id=1010

And therefore...

Because it is not the actual CF Military issued cadpat...the regulations are not applicable. This was also stated in my original post. Please read carefully before you start flaming me...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Nov 2005)

Bottom line is folks, you can buy a watch that LOOKS just like, and says that it is, a Rolex for 30 bucks, IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A ROLEX!!!!
Thats all[again] folks.


----------



## MikeL (1 Mar 2006)

On one forum I'm on, this one Italian guys pretty much shows off an brags about how he is able to get brand new CF issues items, etc
Most of it he buys from someone in Canada, the rest he's able to buy from people in Germany.

CADPAT AR an TW boonies
http://img436.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pc2601608zn.jpg

AR CADPAT combats
http://img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p10101667cq.jpg
http://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p21900122tf.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p21900100yc.jpg

TW CADPAT combats
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p10101752rt.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p20800036rg.jpg

CADPAT gloves
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=guanti20pb.jpg

Tac Vest
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6519/canadianarmytvfronte7fc.jpg


New Ballastic Glasses
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8250/p10101746in.jpg
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6994/p10101728nc.jpg


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2006)

If that's the case perhaps an investigation is in order.


----------



## The Gues-|- (1 Mar 2006)

Hey! maybe it won't be too long before we see CADPAT in rap and hip-hop videos. You Can Find Me In Da Club CADPAT..

 Ga Ga Ga GEEEEE-uuuniiiiitt.... word.


----------



## Bartok5 (1 Mar 2006)

This is not an isolated incident, and in my personal experience there is little point in losing sleep over the "leakage" of genuine-issue operational Canadian uniform items.  The bottom line is that greed amongst a few non-accountable individuals within the CF supply chain far outweighs their obligation to protect the operational security of our soldiers serving both at home and abroad.

The sale of "fell off the truck" CADPAT items has been ongoing since CADPAT TW was first fielded back in late 2001.  If in doubt, just do a "CADPAT" search on eBay.  In and amongst the auction listings for licensed knock-off Frontenac, Drop Zone and Tiger Tactical items (none of which duplicate the genuine kit), you will find the real deal with CF tags.  From the new gloves that most of us don't yet have, to Tac Vests which some of us still haven't been issued, to uniforms, bivvy bags, and small-packs.  There can be zero doubt that there are a very small minority of civilian and/or military personnel within the contractor and/or CF supply chain who are skimming gear and selling it for significant personal profit.  Most have quickly become smart enough to involve an off-shore "middle-man" so as to complicate the investigative chain and avoid prosecution.

The NIS continue to investigate such cases, but to date they have achieved little other than to seize government property from the very few Canadian surplus dealers so pathetically stupid as to purchase and then directly retail government property that was quite obviously stolen.  I say this having been involved in one such case.  The Military Police haven't managed to scratch the surface, particulary as regards the rather unsophisticated operations where a leak in the supply chain sells through a foreign purchaser.  It is really quite pathetic.  Particularly when one considers that the current restrictions on the sale of genuine-issue CADPAT items are firmly grounded in the operational security of our deployed forces.   

Do a search on eBay.  And then get very, very angry and contact your local MP Det with auction links (or better yet, print-outs).  All the while bearing in mind that there is some grotesquely fat-arsed air-softer in Europe wearing the genuine CF CADPAT uniform, tac vest, small-pack, and gloves that YOU (or your subordinate) should have been issued by now....

Are you pissed off yet?!?!  You ought to be....


----------



## Franko (2 Mar 2006)

The brusard of KMNB is a fake.......

 :rofl:

Regards


----------



## ouyin2000 (2 Mar 2006)

MikeL I know exactly what you're talking about 

And yes, it really surprises me that there are people out there who allow leaks like this to continue. One would hope that every individual can be trusted, but that only happens in a perfect society.

Welcome to the real world.

 :


----------



## Lerch (2 Mar 2006)

Just so everyone knows, the chap that MikeL is talking about (mctaz) is a collector of many MANY military uniforms. He's already completed a very large DPM collection, along with smaller Auscam and other sets.


----------



## Bartok5 (2 Mar 2006)

Lerch said:
			
		

> Just so everyone knows, the chap that MikeL is talking about (mctaz) is a collector of many MANY military uniforms. He's already completed a very large DPM collection, along with smaller Auscam and other sets.



And so that entitles him to possess stolen Canadian government property?  I don't think so....

I also collect international camouflage uniforms.  But I have a degree of self-respect and ethics, as do most collectors.  

There are no free rides for those who willingly supply or accept items which are known to be stolen property.  End of story.


----------



## basxav (2 Mar 2006)

Mark
Silly question but since this is an Italian collector, does NATO have any regulations about trafficking in stolen military property? I'm thinking that if a foreign collector from a NATO  country gets genuine CADPAT stuff, couldn't our government ask either the country in question or the NATO justice section for help? Just a niave suggestion of a civilian?
I collect uniforms too and share your ethical qualms about getting stuff you're not allowed to have. I have a both variants of CADPAT but they aren't the real thing- I made one in temperate and the other in desert for my gi joes (aka 1/6 action figures)  That way I don't need to worry about compromising our soldiers' safety and still have the uniforms I like  

xavier


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

Report the links directly to the clother the soldier people.......I did this with an E-bay add and what they told me was that the contractor was able to sell cad-pat items without the special IR coating that was on the issue stuff. So yes it may be cad pat but is it genuine. I suggest who'mever found this to report it up the chain. 

AND YES CADPAT is an ITAR item. meaninig it is a controlled good.......


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

What would be the repercussions for this mans illegal activities?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Mar 2006)

if it was someone in clothing stores it would be army time and possibly civie time


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

Jail time....and having ITAR controlled goods is a federal offence in all NATO countries....


----------



## aluc (2 Mar 2006)

Question: Does that mean purchasing replica gear from Canadian surplus retailers is not allowed, for camping, hunting trips, etc? Obviously the uniforms aren't genuine, but is it illegal to purchase and wear ?


----------



## Bartok5 (2 Mar 2006)

aluc said:
			
		

> Question: Does that mean purchasing replica gear from Canadian surplus retailers is not allowed, for camping, hunting trips, etc? Obviously the uniforms aren't genuine, but is it illegal to purchase and wear ?



The after-market (eg. non-DND issued) CADPAT clothing and equipment is perfectly legal to possess and use.  Certain commercial manufacturers have been licensed by the DND Itellectual Property office to manufacture items using genuine CADPAT material.  The only thing to be aware of is that the CADPAT material sold to those companies has previously been rejected by DND as "seconds" due to minor printing flaws, problems with colour-fastness, etc.   The commerical CADPAT items also lack the anti-IR treatment given to genuine military-issue clothing and equipment.

Any CADPAT gear manufactured by Frontenac, Parklands, Drop Zone Tactical, ICE Tactical, or Wheelers/CP Gear is perfectly legal for anyone to own and use.  A condition of the commercial license (for operational security reasons) is that the after-market manufacturers not make anything which too closely resembles the genuine-issue items.

On the other hand, any and all genuine-issue CADPAT in the hands of someone other than a serving soldier is stolen government property.  There are no legitimate sources for the actual DND-tagged CADPAT clothing and equipment.  Full stop.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> A fool and his money are soon parted... :
> 
> I'll bet he pays an arm and a leg to be a poser. Hope it bankrupts him.



Mark C has a basement full of camouflaged uniforms based on his website and comments here. Is he a poser also?

Uniform collecting is a legitimate hobby, and not everyone that collects actually wears the stuff.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

Incidentally, MarkC, I sent you an email which bounced back to me, and you're as bad about checking PMs as I am so I'll ask here - I notice on your site you have a King and Country Denison.  I just picked up a 1945 dated Denison from one of our former RSMs; are the uniforms on your site solely stuff you've owned, or would a scan of my smock be of any value to you?  I am not selling it but can photograph it if it's of use to you.


----------



## army outfitters (2 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> The brusard of KMNB is a fake.......
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Regards


Would love to know how you figure the brassard is a fake since I have the purchase order on file when I supplied them to Pet.


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

Hows this make you feel?



> CANADIAN MILITARY CADPAT HELMET SIZE MEDIUM



$160 current bid Ebay

http://cgi.ebay.ca/CANADIAN-MILITARY-CADPAT-HELMET-SIZE-MEDIUM_W0QQitemZ6608050979QQcategoryZ36068QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

edit: more to come

Canadian Kevlar Helmet $135 US

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Kevlar-Helmet-Cadpat-White-Cats-Eyes-Free-S-H_W0QQitemZ6609723412QQcategoryZ36076QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting


JTF2 Gear? doubt it but here it is:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/TWO-JTF-2-CADPAT-CHEST-HARNESSS-Rare-Brand-New_W0QQitemZ6610105945QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting



> IRR treated, resists detection by Infrared night vision devices.



and for the chaplain in all of us:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-CADPAT-Chaplain-Padre-Insignia_W0QQitemZ6601960046QQcategoryZ48824QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting




> genuine CADPAT issue combat shirt



http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-Cadpat-Shirt-Genuine-Issue-Size-6740_W0QQitemZ6608826773QQcategoryZ104023QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting


----------



## army outfitters (2 Mar 2006)

JTF2 Gear? doubt it but here it is:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/TWO-JTF-2-CADPAT-CHEST-HARNESSS-Rare-Brand-New_W0QQitemZ6610105945QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting


[/quote]
This is actually the real deal just so you know


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

Theres nothing we/ the govt can do about people pissing away valuable CF gear?


----------



## army outfitters (2 Mar 2006)

You would be very surprised what comes out of crown assets in the way of issue kit that is brand new or almost brand new ie tankers suits which are a hard item to get yet I bought a pile of them brand new in human sizes. Ditto the hard to get SAR orange suits. Not everything fell off the truck but I am sure some of it does


----------



## MikeL (2 Mar 2006)

Lerch, don't you also have a CADPAT uniform, OD Goretex Jacket and IR CADPAT Camnet? 



Guy.E I've seen a lot of those before, Canadian Helmets are pretty common on Ebay, an a few surplus stores. 



			
				ouyin2000 said:
			
		

> Welcome to the real world.
> 
> :



Don't try to be a smartass kid.


----------



## ouyin2000 (2 Mar 2006)

You have absolutely no right calling me a "kid".


----------



## basxav (2 Mar 2006)

Hi all:
Thanks for the update. ITAR huh? Well let's hope that the courts gives stiff prison sentences to discourage others. Uniform collecting is a great hobby but we needn't break the law to get the stuff we covet. 

xavier


----------



## big bad john (2 Mar 2006)

Calm down people.  Let's have a little respect on both sides please.


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

basxav said:
			
		

> Hi all:
> Thanks for the update. ITAR huh? Well let's hope that the courts gives stiff prison sentences to discourage others. Uniform collecting is a great hobby but we needn't break the law to get the stuff we covet.
> 
> xavier



YUP ITAR  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/3003/0_e.asp

Controlled Goods
Identification
Date of Issue 2002-12-06

Application This is a directive that applies to employees of the Department of National Defence (DND) and an order that applies to officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces ("CF members").



Approval 
Authority This DAOD is issued under the authority of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) (ADM(Mat)).

Enquiries Controlled Technology Access Transfer (CTAT) Office


Policy Direction
Context "Controlled goods" are specified in the schedule to the Defence Production Act. The schedule refers to goods that are included in the Export Control List, which is administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The Export Control List includes defence goods listed under the United States Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the United States, and any goods subject to similar regulations issued by any country trading defence goods with Canada.

Under the Defence Production Act it is an offence for a person who is not registered under that Act to knowingly examine, possess or transfer a controlled good. The registration requirements do not apply to a person who occupies a position in the federal public service or a federal Crown Corporation, or is employed by Her Majesty in right of a province, who acts in good faith in the course of their duties and employment.



Policy 
Statement DND and the CF are committed to demonstrating responsiveness to, and responsibility for, all laws and regulations in respect of controlled goods. 



Requirements DND and the CF must: 

ensure that all controlled goods are identified and afforded the necessary level of protection to prevent their unauthorized examination, possession or transfer; 

ensure that DND employees and CF members exercise due diligence and permit access to controlled goods only by persons so authorized under the Defence Production Act and the Controlled Goods Regulations; and 

provide for reporting and investigation if the security of a controlled good is compromised in any way.


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

Management of Controlled Goods
Identification
Date of Issue 2002-12-06

Application This is a directive that applies to employees of the Department of National Defence (DND) and an order that applies to officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces ("CF members").



Approval 
Authority This DAOD is issued under the authority of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) (ADM(Mat)).

Enquiries Controlled Technology Access Transfer (CTAT) Office




Requirements
Management of 
Controlled Goods In the management of controlled goods in DND and the CF, DND employees and CF members shall:

acquire an appropriate level of knowledge and skills by means of awareness and training programs to manage controlled goods; 

procure, manage, secure, use and dispose of controlled goods in a manner that meets all laws, regulations, international agreements, contracts, licenses and other agreements that govern the use or transfer of controlled goods; 

incorporate the management of controlled goods in all aspects of: 

research and development, 

engineering and maintenance, and 

life cycle materiel management (initial selection, procurement, warehousing, use, handling, storage, transportation and disposal); and

ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to prevent unauthorized access to controlled goods.
Note – See the Context block in DAOD 3003-0, Controlled Goods for the meaning of "controlled goods".



Exercising Due 
Diligence As a minimum in the management of controlled goods in DND and the CF, due diligence requires that DND employees and CF members:

know and obey federal laws and regulations applicable to controlled goods; 

know how to identify controlled goods, and persons who are authorized to have access to controlled goods; 

take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to controlled goods; 

prepare for risks that a thoughtful and reasonable person would foresee; and 

respond to risks and incidents as soon as practicable.

Compromise of 
Security If the security of controlled goods is compromised in any way, the incident shall be reported immediately and investigated.

Corrective action shall be taken as necessary to prevent any reoccurrence

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/3003/1_e.asp


----------



## Lerch (2 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> Lerch, don't you also have a CADPAT uniform, OD Goretex Jacket and IR CADPAT Camnet?


Err...yes...however, my CADPAT uniform (shirt and trousers) are factory-extra (never went to DND for tagging). So I dunno if they would count for 'controlled items'.
Still, being a cadet with CADPAT, it's a grey area. People will argue both sides to the death. Personally, I respect my uniform. I wear my cadet slipons and don't try to pass off as a RegF or PRes member. I've had people (civilians) ask if I was in the Army, and I've told them I was a Sea Cadet.


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

If its not DND tagged you are safe...


----------



## Bartok5 (2 Mar 2006)

In reviewing this thread, Sgt Bilko's comments reminded me of a situation which renders one of my earlier comments incorrect.  I stated that any and all genuine-issue CADPAT in non-DND possession is de-facto stolen government property, but that is not actually the case.  

There were a few incidents where crown assets sold off triwalls of condemned genuine-issue uniforms that had reached the end of their service life.  This was the result of several base supply organizations not being aware of the CTS "render to rags" disposal policy for CADPAT items.  Those organizations mistakenly discarded the uniforms in intact (albeit very worn/damaged) condition.  CTS put a quick stop to that when the mistake became apparent with the uniforms appearing in various surplus shops, but not before a bunch of the first generation uniforms leaked out onto the civilian market.  There was a rather high-profile case in Morinville AB (just North of Edmonton Garrison) where a surplus dealer ended up with quite a few condemned CADPAT uniforms and refused to return them to the military when the disposal error was discovered.  After some legal wrangling, the dealer (CEL Surplus) was permitted to retain and sell the uniforms.  

All of that to say that there are some genuine-issue CADPAT shirts and trousers that were legally acquired floating around on the civilian market.  However, these are all the older first-generation uniform with the fading problem, and all that were sold are in well-worn condition.

So, I correct my earlier statement to read that any NEW CONDITION CADPAT uniforms possessed outside of DND are invariably stolen government property.  Along with any CADPAT ICE clothing, Tac Vests, Small Packs, etc.  None of the latter were issued prior to enforcement of the "render to rags" disposal directive.

FWIW.... Just trying to keep the record straight.


----------



## Lerch (2 Mar 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> If its not DND tagged you are safe...


Really? Phew, load off my mind. What about the OD Goretex parka? Would that also be 'controlled'? I ask only because it's not CADPAT.


----------



## mover1 (2 Mar 2006)

If its OD chances are you are pretty safe......


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> First thought, he's an airsofter. Thats why.



Ewwwwww!   You are a young pup aren't you?


----------



## RossF (3 Mar 2006)

Eventually the bad people will run out of money and the cadpat will remain on our backs.


----------



## armyvern (4 Mar 2006)

You are right that what is linked in the first post here is just beginning to scratch the surface. And those of us who do send these "items" forward for investigation have a hard time trying to keep up with it all. 

Base supply sections are shredding this stuff because it is controlled and we have to by law. If the item is obsolete and no longer used in DND/CF and is uncontrolled by ITAR/CTAT...it can be sold through CADC/Crown assets in usable/serviceable condition such as crew suits. 

Leadership must come into play as the overwhelming abundance of these kit items available in small quantities on e-bay etc is NOT coming from a corrupt Supply Tech at clothing stores. I guarantee you that the R&D section is not "scrapping" a brand new or nearly new piece of kit that is still operational. As for the Olive drab goretex (IECS) it is controlled by CTAT/ITAR but there is much of it available on the civvy side of the house as the CF has been using this item since the mid-nineties. Much was sold through CADC prior to Sept 11 2001. 9/11 led to increased CTAT/ITAR restrictions and regulations being placed on many more items of kit. Items which were not controlled prior to 9/11 found controls being placed on them after these tragic events in an attempt to limit the risk to ourselves and our allies by posers and availability of our technology etc. A jacket obtained quite legally via CADC in the late 90s and early this milleneum is not able to be "legally" obtained now.

When it is a glitch/mistake in the Supply system they tend to become available in bulk...such was the case north of Edmonton. I guarantee you that the R&D section is not "scrapping" a brand new or nearly new piece of kit that is still operational and if it is, it is shredded or destroyed via an alternate means prior to being sold as scrap material.

What you are seeing on e-bay etc these days is dishonest soldiers who are breaking the law. And not just the odd Sup Tech or two (because I'm sure they are out there as well). What you are seeing is the kit that one of your subordinates or buddies had to report as lost or stolen on an MLR (and which you or your CO probably held him financially responsible for) because another one of your buddies/subordinates had acess to it and STOLE it. This kit is not legally obtained...it is stolen. Just look at the enormous volume of MLRs being submitted to Base Supply Clothing Stores by your soldiers to replace their stolen items. Your chain of command has signed off on them as having "investigated" but have they really? I say not judging by the amount of stolen gear showing up on sites like these. 

There are also quite a few soldiers out there who feel that it is totally legal and acceptable to file an MLR saying they lost something (which they haven't) in order to obtain an extra/duplicate item. How much of this ends up on e-bay where that soldier has his little side-line business going? This is also not legal and this soldier has "lied" and signed on official government paperwork...

It is up to all levels of the Chain of Command to enforce discipline and investigate losses/thefts of kit from their soldiers when reported. After all, it is your honest soldier who the item has been stolen from who ends up paying for it and the thief who stole it is making a killing on e-bay putting you and your fellow soldiers at risk. 

Oh for the days when we dealt with the thieves amongst us at the lowest level...and harshly too!!


----------



## Trinity (4 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> and for the chaplain in all of us:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-CADPAT-Chaplain-Padre-Insignia_W0QQitemZ6601960046QQcategoryZ48824QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting



Actually

Those crosses are aftermarket knockoff/replica's.

I know.. Cause I had them made along with chaplains and amonier flashes for the epilettes. (sp)

This is because the crosses were hard to get and the flashes didn't (and still don't) exist except
for the ones I have and sold to other chaplains to raise money for breast cancer.


----------



## armyvern (4 Mar 2006)

At least your keeping it legal Trinity!!  ;D


----------



## mudgunner49 (4 Mar 2006)

nothing to see here- move along...


----------



## mudgunner49 (4 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> First thought, *he's an airsofter*. Thats why.



hmmm - better reconsider...


blake


----------



## army outfitters (4 Mar 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Actually
> 
> Those crosses are aftermarket knockoff/replica's.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Gues-|- (4 Mar 2006)

Another site selling CADPAT:

http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/productsdig.html

http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/graphics/gallery/pictures/m8412.jpg

http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/gallery.html

The wanks in charge: http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/contact.html


----------



## MikeL (4 Mar 2006)

Flecktarn.co.uk is selling the repro Frontenac stuff, not CF issue.

http://www.flecktarn.co.uk/graphics/gallery/pictures/m8412.jpg This is Danish kit, not Canadian CADPAT.


----------



## KevinB (5 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> First thought, he's an airsofter. Thats why.



 :

Uhm yeah sure...

I guess all airsofters have lead air assaults in Afghanistan  ^-^


----------



## The Gues-|- (14 Mar 2006)

Sale of Canadian military uniforms on internet sparks investigation
Last Updated Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:30:01 EST
CBC News




> The military is investigating how clothing and equipment that's issued only to Canadian soldiers is ending up for sale on the internet.
> 
> The sale is also raising concerns about the security of Canadian troops.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/14/uniforms_internet060314.html


(Edited by Moderator to place reference source at start of article and add quote box.)


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (14 Mar 2006)

This isn't a new problem.  There were a certain few from OP Athena Roto's who have posted their brassards, and OP Athena field books on e-bay for sale.  

I think it's a case of some of the crew not thinking of what could ultimately happen or that there are certain "bad" people who are interested in obtaining these items to use them against us.  

That said, the army surplus store market is booming and I think it's impossible to control.  I was surprised to read in your post that the wearing of CADPAT clothing by civilians is illegal?  I don't see how that could ever be enforced, or what law it would be contravening.  

Personally, I hate to see anyone wearing any part of our uniform who hasn't 'earned' the right.  Legally, I don't think we can change the civi's, but we certainly can educate our members about the potential harm and damage that can be caused by their selling kit.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Devlin (14 Mar 2006)

This article does not make a lot of sense in that companies like Drop Zone Tactical and Candian Peacekeeper amongst others do a good business in the production of CADPAT clothing that is fairly similiar too actual uniforms. Not exact matches but between companies like this and about 20 minutes in a surplus store or ebay and presto one look alike CF troop. 

No it would not stand up to close inspection and I would hope that being a small force would allow us to readily spot an outsider.

I would also hope that companies like those mentioned above would exercise some due dillegence and not ship items to questionable addresses, yes I know not entirely fool proof either.


----------



## orange.paint (14 Mar 2006)

I personally don't think its a big deal.When I was like 10 I had full American combats (ssgt cherra nametag) and all the bells and whistles which I bought at a army navy store because it was army and so freaking cool.I don't think these people who buy this stuff for the most part have malicious intents.A civilian could easily go into wheelers here in oromocto and full kit himself out head to top in cadpat.It may vary a little in design (i.e buttons) but at a distance it could be mistaken.

With all this talk of this today it reminds me of a tour of duty episode where charlie dresses up in American gear walking into their camp with a prisoner.....(yes I'm a loser I like the show for the sheer stupidity).

Look how easy marpad and old American combats are to get here in Canada and I haven't heard any stories of Iraqi's using it for attacks.

Anyone agree?


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Mar 2006)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> This isn't a new problem.  There were a certain few from OP Athena Roto's who have posted their brassards, and OP Athena field books on e-bay for sale.
> 
> I think it's a case of some of the crew not thinking of what could ultimately happen or that there are certain "bad" people who are interested in obtaining these items to use them against us.
> 
> ...



The comment about the illegality was actually from the CBC article.  In any case, it is illegal because under various laws/regulation regarding the manufacture and production of the CADPAT uniforms, all the uniforms are required to be shredded prior to disposal.  If the uniforms (and other kit) in question are being sold intact on ebay, then either the items were stolen outright (from another soldier, or from a supply warehouse etc.), which leads to possesion of stolen property and/or theft charges.  Or the items were reported as "missing/lost" to the local base supply when in fact they weren't which can leads to property obtain by fraudulent means/proceeds of crime etc.  There are other threads that have the specific details and what not.  Search under CADPAT

Edit after I read above two posts. What the article was trying to get at was the unauthorized sale of of ACTUAL ISSUED kit, (not the knock off stuff) was a growing problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Mar 2006)

Definitely something to be aware of the possibility of occuring, but there's nothing preventing insurgent/Taliban/Al Qaeda forces from acquiring US, British, or any multitude of uniforms of allied nations (whose uniforms are readily available through surplus stores, ebay, internet, etc.) serving beside the Canadians in Afghanistan and carrying out an attack as described.  
It's been done by insurgent forces in Iraq during fighting in Fallujah and Najaf and achieved limited/little success (The insurgents didn't use the uniforms for suicide bombings, but rather in the pitched street battles to try and infiltrate into American lines).

I'd be more worried about an attack of multiple VBIEDs used to breach and attack a facility, ie. Palestine Hotel in Baghdad than a single footborne suicide bomber disguising himself as a Canadian in cadpat clothing and equipment.  Also, a lone soldier attempting to enter a compound or infiltrate a body of troops would draw attention unto himself, as it's very unlikely that a single troop would be 'outside the wire'.  Then when he's challenged/questioned by the gate guard, unless he spoke perfect english or french (depending on the working language of the unit deployed) it'd become very quickly apparent, something was fishy and the situation would be handled accordingly.  Proper force protection requires some sort of id check/challenge procedure for persons entering friendly lines, no matter how they're dressed or what sort of vehicle they're in.
Outside of the wire suicide bombers have got ample opportunity to get into lethal blast range of patrols without having to 'Cadpat' themselves up.
If there were a legitimate fear of being infiltrated by insurgents/terrorists dressed in cadpat uniforms and equipment, I'd be more worried about the Pakistani knock-off cadpat stuff done by Parklands being used for an infiltration attack, seeing as how the stuff is readily available in Al Qaeda's own backyard.


----------



## Haggis (14 Mar 2006)

Selling uniforms _may_ be illegal but wearing them definitely is:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181296.html#rid-181327

From the Criminal Code: 

"419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces  or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,

(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or

(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (14 Mar 2006)

Just as a thought to the interpretation of the CC.  When "uniform" is refered to, it is the complete entity not just a piece of clothing.  It's not as though we could arrest individuals who had army backpacks on, or the numerous number of people who wear our combat shirts and jackets.  

The mens rea required would be to wear the uniform as to represent ones self as a member of the CF.


----------



## Haggis (14 Mar 2006)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Just as a thought to the interpretation of the CC.  When "uniform" is refered to, it is the complete entity not just a piece of clothing.  It's not as though we could arrest individuals who had army backpacks on, or the numerous number of people who wear our combat shirts and jackets.
> 
> The mens rea required would be to wear the uniform as to represent ones self as a member of the CF.



And that charge was laid and succesfully prosecuted during the Ice Storm.


----------



## beenthere (14 Mar 2006)

There's a waggon load of the stuff listed on the bay. I don't know how the supply system works but there is obviously either a leak in the system or between the contractors and the system.
As for the security impact of uniforms for sale to the wrong people I would suggest that it would certainly provide them with easy access to costumes and should be stopped.
It should be quite easy to identify the people offering them for sale. Just go to ebay and enter cadpat in the search block if you want to check on who's selling the goods.


----------



## Armymedic (14 Mar 2006)

Some of the items on sale I question:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-Cadpat-Pants-Genuine-Issue-Size-6738_W0QQitemZ6612231895QQcategoryZ104023QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-Cadpat-Shirt-Genuine-Issue-Size-7040_W0QQitemZ6612258920QQcategoryZ104023QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Tactical-Vest-Cadpat-LARGE_W0QQitemZ6613175701QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Also one of the Ebay stores sells a CADPAT Goretex Biv bag. I have never ever seen one of those in the field yet.

To sell these items, it would mean either someone is stealing them, or not turning them in when their employment ends.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2006)

It really is old news.  We were talking about this just a couple of weeks ago in the Small Pack Issue:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35240/post-346752.html#msg346752

I am sure someone took the advice there and notified the proper authorities, so CBC's claim to fame is false bravado.

Just go up to the Search Box and type in Ebay and you will find that we have over 20 pages of Topics dealing with the sale of CF kit on their site.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Mar 2006)

I find it especially comforting that the Military Police and NIS were "unaware" of this problem before the CBC brought it up.

I did'nt even think it was worth reporting, it seemed so obvious, I thought that they would already be on top of it.

I guess I was mistaken...


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Also one of the Ebay stores sells a CADPAT Goretex Biv bag. I have never ever seen one of those in the field yet.



I have seen quite a few in the field.  I have one.



> To sell these items, it would mean either someone is stealing them, or not turning them in when their employment ends.



Either way it consititutes theft, as the owner of the kit is ultimately the crown.

_322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;_

this offence would probably also apply

_337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 297._

and very likely this one as well

_354. (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment._


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I find it especially comforting that the Military Police and NIS were "unaware" of this problem before the CBC brought it up.
> 
> I did'nt even think it was worth reporting, it seemed so obvious, I thought that they would already be on top of it.
> 
> I guess I was mistaken...



I doubt they were unaware.  I seem to recall a few stories of pending investigations of few years back (2-3) when these items first started showing up on ebay.  I have my own ideas of why they said they were unaware, but I will let you come up with your own theories of why they would say it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Mar 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Selling uniforms _may_ be illegal but wearing them definitely is:
> 
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181296.html#rid-181327
> 
> ...



Ironically enough, it is legal for our enemies to wear them - the Geneva Convention (IIRC) states that wearing enemy uniforms in time of war is a legitimate _ruse de guerre_ as long as the uniforms are taken off before contact is made with the enemy.  Don't know how that applies if you are not actually in a war (ie are a terrorist), though.  The Brandenburg Commandos used enemy uniforms all the time in the Second World War.

Therefore, I'd say its even more important that our military clothing doesn't just end up in anybody's hands.


----------



## Wookilar (15 Mar 2006)

There was a big fight over the sale of CADPAT in Edmonton about two years ago. A retired member has a surplus store, had the contract for disposal of clothing. Got lots of CADPAT, legally, bought and paid for from whoever it is on base that does disposal. All legal and above board. About 6 months after the latest delivery (about this time last year), the hammer dropped. All CADPAT was to be returned, it was illegal to sell it, going to charge him with a bunch of crap, yadda yadda. He did end up giving it all back and at first he wasn't going to be reimbursed for what he paid for the uniforms. I left when it was still between the lawyers, so I don't know what's going on now.
The Edmonton Journal may still have it in their archives. Smiling Scotty was on the front page with a couple tri-walls of CADPAT. Good free advertising for him, but he lost a butt load of potential sales.

Edit: Just checked the website, still has CADPAT listed for sale. I don't want to flog anybody's wares here, but if you want the site, PM me and I'll send you the link so you can see for yourself.


----------



## army outfitters (15 Mar 2006)

This dealer did not return the goods as he bought them fair and square via crown assets. Since then any surplus he gets of any type always ends up being chipped or shredded no matter what it is. I guess they don't like him any more but yes he still has stuff for sale


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2006)

> I doubt they were unaware.  I seem to recall a few stories of pending investigations of few years back (2-3) when these items first started showing up on ebay.  I have my own ideas of why they said they were unaware, but I will let you come up with your own theories of why they would say it.



I agree 100%

Weren't aware? Bullshit.
Not being aware of this makes them sound even dumber than being aware but not being able to catch the crooks.
MPs HAVE investigated errant tacvests when they first came out and found their way on EBAY.


----------



## big_castor (15 Mar 2006)

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Tactical-Vest-Cadpat-LARGE_W0QQitemZ6613175701QQcategoryZ36071QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem said:
			
		

> You are looking at an used but in perfect condition Canadian Tactical Vest. It come with 2 extra C9 pouch where you can put a barrel or other stuff.
> 
> This tactical vest had only *one owner who has released after 6 month*



I guess the owner somehow forgot to return the vest when he released....


----------



## MadNad (15 Mar 2006)

Hey guys,

I did read in the DND news web site last summer that a supply tech (Edmonton) has given trywalls full of cadpat items to an Army Surplus by mistake.
Those trywall were supposed to go to destruction and were mistakably given away. They said that the DND try to get back the stuff, but in some case it was too late.
The guy already had them sold to other Army surplus for a very good price. I had too laugh about it. (Even if it is not funny). Shit Happen.

As for investigation about CADPAT on E-Bay, i know that CFNIS has a team that just take care of that for the last 2 years. So this is not new news for DND.


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

well..... is this all that much different from my being able to purchase Combat clothing from the local surplus store in 1970 at the height of the October crisis - while there were armed troops patroling the streets of Montreal?

Until such time as the CF choses to forbid Crown Assets disposal (or whatever their name is these days) from unloading the worn out kit to the highest bidder.... you'll always find kit in the stores.


----------



## Haggis (15 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Until such time as the CF choses to forbid Crown Assets disposal (or whatever their name is these days) from unloading the worn out kit to the highest bidder.... you'll always find kit in the stores.



We gotta pay for helicopters somehow.

Certain stuff is modified before it's sold (file cabinets, for example).  Shredding CADPAT for use as hunting scrim is a good plan.  Selling intact shirts/pants etc. is not.


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

hey, we do enough painting on our bases that we can easily go thru all of the scrap material as paint rags..... 
otherwise, chop it up, roll it up & smoke em if you have em


----------



## armyvern (16 Mar 2006)

Squadron CO said:
			
		

> I guess the owner somehow forgot to return the vest when he released....


More than likely he filed a Miscellaneous Loss report stating that it had been "Lost or Stolen," accepted responsibility, his supervisor had to sign off at the very least because it is a CTS item that incorporates the cadpat material. He probably also agreed to re-imburse the Crown the full dollar value of the item, and did so ensuring that his MLR did not have to travel any further up his CoC for investigation. What's paying full dollar value to the CF for it when you know you're gonna get 8 or 9 hundred bucks U.S. for it on E-Bay?

Bottom line is the guy's a thief who lied (while serving) on offical government paperwork and I hope he/she swings for it.

Even if this was erroneously removed from his charge (or wasn't on it at all) by the Supply Section...the following applies:

Further, IAW regulations it is every CF members duty and responsibility to report any items paid for by the Crown that they have in their personal posession but are not on their charge. IAW regulations it is the members responsibility to report these items to Clothing Stores so that they may be put onto the member's charge. It is considered theft of Crown Assets to keep an item which is not next-to-skin or not authorized for retention upon release just because it's not on your charge.  

There's an awful lot of soldiers serving out there who certainly aren't reporting what they have surplus either, which is still considered theft.

So for those to whom this applies...next time you go to clothing and they say you have one each of XX on your charge (or none) but you know you actually have XX qty sitting at home in your basement... are you going to do the right thing??

As long as the items are on your charge you'll have no problems. But if perchance the MPs go through your house/shack etc and it isn't on your charge (or you don't have a receipt from a surplus store showing you bought one there)...then you've got worries my friends.


----------



## Servicepub (16 Mar 2006)

A lot of this stuff gets into the surplus system directly from the manufacturers. When they are contracted to make 1,000 Cadpat widgets and find themselves with an overrun of 50-100, or when their delivery of 50 pieces is refused because it doesn't meet Quality Assurance standards, these companies will sell them to anyone to recoup something for their time and material.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2006)

Servicepub said:
			
		

> A lot of this stuff gets into the surplus system directly from the manufacturers. When they are contracted to make 1,000 Cadpat widgets and find themselves with an overrun of 50-100, or when their delivery of 50 pieces is refused because it doesn't meet Quality Assurance standards, these companies will sell them to anyone to recoup something for their time and material.



How dare you interrupt our witch hunt.   :rage:  I know perfectly well a second key to the clothing stores in Gagetown had been fashioned from a block of soap, and we were about to prove it using the principles of geometric logic.  A quart of strawberries is nothing to sneeze at either.

And for God's sake, tuck your shirt flap in!


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> How dare you interrupt our witch hunt.   :rage:  I know perfectly well a second key to the clothing stores in Gagetown had been fashioned from a block of soap, and we were about to prove it using the principles of geometric logic.  A quart of strawberries is nothing to sneeze at either.
> And for God's sake, tuck your shirt flap in!


Geez Michael thanks for the heads up..I'll have to change my locks tomorrow!!  



> A lot of this stuff gets into the surplus system directly from the manufacturers. When they are contracted to make 1,000 Cadpat widgets and find themselves with an overrun of 50-100, or when their delivery of 50 pieces is refused because it doesn't meet Quality Assurance standards, these companies will sell them to anyone to recoup something for their time and material.



They shouldn't be. Our suppliers are expressly forbidden as part of the contract to get rid of any excess or overruns of CTAT/ITAR items in their contracts as part of the DPA (Defense Production Act). Supplier's of a CTAT/ITAR item have gone through the security process and are also subject to CTAT/ITAR regulations. As these suppliers are indeed manufacturing a controlled good for the CF, they are subject to the DPA. They are still allowed to sell any over-runs or surplus of an uncontrolled item but not any item which is subject to CTAT/ITAR Regulations (that would include the clothing items now for sale on E-Bay):

CTAT:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/daod/3003/1_e.asp

For Defense Suppliers:

"Under the Defence Production Act it is an offence for a person who is not registered under that Act to knowingly examine, possess or transfer a controlled good. The registration requirements do not apply to a person who occupies a position in the federal public service or a federal Crown Corporation, or is employed by Her Majesty in right of a province, who acts in good faith in the course of their duties and employment."

For those of us who do occupy posns in the DND or the CF:

"Policy Statement 
DND and the CF are committed to demonstrating responsiveness to, and responsibility for, all laws and regulations in respect of controlled goods. 

Requirements
DND and the CF must: 

ensure that all controlled goods are identified and afforded the necessary level of protection to prevent their unauthorized examination, possession or transfer; 

ensure that DND employees and CF members exercise due diligence and permit access to controlled goods only by persons so authorized under the Defence Production Act and the Controlled Goods Regulations; and provide for reporting and investigation if the security of a controlled good is compromised in any way.

Authority
Authority Table The following table identifies the authorities responsible for implementing the policy.

The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS)
has the authority to direct that the management of controlled goods be included in business plans.

ADM(Mat)
approve and administer policy for controlled goods."


----------



## Flipper (19 Mar 2006)

I just wanted to clarify a few comments made by CEL... firstly he is confusing ITAR/CTAT and Demil codes with CF regulations and Supply procedures, CF QR&Os state that all CADPAT uniforms are to be destroyed, the ALM 007 Supply Manual expands on this directive and provides specific instructions on how CADPAT items are to be shredded/destroyed before being declared surplus (the only thing surplus dealers are supposed to end up with are CADPAT rags). ITAR/CTAT and demil codes are primarily a means to appease the Americains when it comes to shipping/disposal of what they consider shared sensitive material.These are mainly comprised of weapons system, communications, and sensor components. And yes some CADPAT items are actually cataloged as CTAT. However regardless of CTAT/ITAR designation and which Demil code is used, under CF Law all CADPAT is to be destroyed, and any items which aren't , whether intentional or through negligence and/or ignorance. This material is now leaving the CF through illegal means. In case anyone is wondering I am a Supply Tech currently serving in the CF and I am well aware of the regulations and directives I am referring to. For any members out there who are not aware there is currently a nationwide investigation being conducted in regards to actual issue CADPAT items being sold on the Internet and through surplus dealers.


----------



## bboyintown (20 Mar 2006)

Surely there is law preventing civis from wearing military uniforms in public.  I am speaking about the full regalia that is meant to convince someone that the person wearing the uniform is agenuine regular enlisted person, then that person should be made to answer to criminal charges.  Today's world events justify this as a reasonable limitation on civil liberties.  Civies just gotta use their heads.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2006)

bboyintown said:
			
		

> Surely there is law preventing civis from wearing military uniforms in public.  I am speaking about the full regalia that is meant to convince someone that the person wearing the uniform is agenuine regular enlisted person, then that person should be made to answer to criminal charges.  Today's world events justify this as a reasonable limitation on civil liberties.  Civies just gotta use their heads.



There IS a law against it.  See my post #6 on the previous page.


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

Well EBay is still selling CADPAT on their site.

Seems that DND and the NIS isn't going after them too fast.    :

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Well EBay is still selling CADPAT on their site.
> 
> Seems that DND and the NIS isn't going after them too fast.    :
> 
> Regards



http://cgi.ebay.com/Canadian-Army-Cadpat-Shirt-Genuine-Issue-Size-6744_W0QQitemZ6614933099QQcategoryZ104023QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Like this? Hmmm. Lots of kosher commercial stuff on there, but this shirt is troublesome.


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

You would think that the press taking an issue like this...

EBay would have been contacted by DND and that legal consequences would be taken if this wasn't addressed.

Regards


----------



## monika (20 Mar 2006)

I don't get this. ebat will shut down any auction at the slightest accusation so I can't figure why that would be on there.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Mar 2006)

I KNOW WHY THE DND IS UNAWARE OF CADPAT ON EBAY!!!

The DWAN computers have E-bay blocked, along with hotmail and a few others! The MPs could not investigate because the jimmies police them too well!

The irony.....


----------



## monika (20 Mar 2006)

LOL! Still all it takes is one email to ebay questionong the legitimacy of an auction and they'll pull stuff; it doesn't even have to come from DND or the copyright holder/whatever.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I KNOW WHY THE DND IS UNAWARE OF CADPAT ON EBAY!!!
> 
> The DWAN computers have E-bay blocked, along with hotmail and a few others! The MPs could not investigate because the jimmies police them too well!
> 
> The irony.....



They only blocked ebay about a year or so ago. Too bad, it was quite convenient for getting pictures of regimental stuff for various purposes. Ah well.

And as pointed out, anyone can put a complaint into ebay, if you can find your way through the annoying form-filling process for about 20 minutes.


----------



## Strike (21 Mar 2006)

Interesting, because that shirt has been for sale several times.  Obviously, someone has a few of these lying around.  Interesting to note that the tac vest that was for sale last week was removed from auction by the seller on the 15th.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Mar 2006)

Maybe they dont SEEM to care because most of the stuff there is fake...and they know what is what.


----------



## rvdklok (21 Mar 2006)

Alot of the stuff is fake....like these pants listed here....
http://cgi.ebay.ca/CANADIAN-CADPAT-COMBAT-PANTS-NEW-XS-XXL_W0QQitemZ6614054005QQcategoryZ70987QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

If you read the description.....you'll find this.....


> THESE ARE THE NEW CANADIAN CADPAT DIGITAL CAMO PATTERN COMBAT PANTS MADE BY THE SAME MANUFACTURER AS THE GOVERNMENT ISSUE ONES . THE SPECS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC SALE!



Though I don't buy off e-bay.....NOR am I a soldier.....if I ever come across some of this CADPAT look-a-like stuff, I will most certainly buy it. I am an AVID hunter, and it's been proven that at farther distances, the CADPAT is MUCH better than ANY current hunting camoflauge pattern on the market. HOWEVER.....I'm definately not the type to add fake name tapes, hooks, bars, etc.....to try and make myself look like I'm something I'm not.
Actually.....my best friend is 1st PPCLI and he bought a regular back pack in a CADPAT type of pattern from the surplus store in Edmonton. No-one has a problem with the store selling it.....well.....if they do....as long as it is changed enough to get around copyright laws....there's nothing anyone can say or do about it.
I do disagree with people on e-bay selling an item and blatantly lying by saying it is genuine military issue. Those items should be removed as they are clearly stating intentions of breaking Canadian laws. If someone sells a bag of baby powder and sais it's cocaine.....they get charged with trafficking cocaine....should be the same with people saying they're selling genuine military issued CADPAT or other CF merchandise which is Illegal for sale.


----------



## armyvern (21 Mar 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> LOL! Still all it takes is one email to ebay questionong the legitimacy of an auction and they'll pull stuff; it doesn't even have to come from DND or the copyright holder/whatever.


Yep. That's all it takes just one e-mail to E-Bay Security. One e-mail for every single item. 
I've done it...I can't keep up with it all. I've passed on to them "Cadpat" "Genuine CF Issue" and "Clothe the Soldier" as the keywords to watch for...more than once.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Yep. That's all it takes just one e-mail to E-Bay Security. One e-mail for every single item.
> I've done it...I can't keep up with it all. I've passed on to them "Cadpat" "Genuine CF Issue" and "Clothe the Soldier" as the keywords to watch for...more than once.



Why should they care?  They make a commission on every sale - they also sell millions of items every week. Every sale that gets stopped, ebay issues a refund to the lister, even if it was an illegal listing.  For my money, ebay is too restrictive as it is.  

No, this is the Army's problem, not ebay's.  Not the consumers who want the stuff.  The Army needs to sort it out, if it is really a concern to them.


----------



## Cliff (25 Mar 2006)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Personally, I hate to see anyone wearing any part of our uniform who hasn't 'earned' the right.  Legally, I don't think we can change the civi's, but we certainly can educate our members about the potential harm and damage that can be caused by their selling kit.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



Excellent points.

It's not much different than wearing a police uniform= IMO. Or selling them.


----------



## AFman (17 Apr 2006)

I have erased the location and info for safety reasons (thanks GUNNER2RCR and Hatchet Man for helping me realize the importance).


----------



## ERIK2RCR (17 Apr 2006)

Any bets on how fast the NCIU is at his front door??


----------



## AFman (17 Apr 2006)

No, the guy got them from a depository or some place like that. They are clean. At least I hope so. Thesse combats are considered surplus because of their combat effective status.


----------



## painswessex (17 Apr 2006)

I garentee you that the cadpat was obtained from some guy selling it to him because i can tell you that because of the certain properties of the cadpat the are destroyed and not sold to surplus stores. So they are ethier the civilian copies without the properties that make them a restricted item or they were obtain outside the military.


----------



## AFman (17 Apr 2006)

Well, all I can tell you is the combats there have the same properties as the real ones, flag patch, tilted pockets, insignia flap, and draw strings inside. The guy there has civvie copies and the real ones.


----------



## ERIK2RCR (17 Apr 2006)

I'm not so worried about the 15 year old wearing genuine cadpat around as much as your local Taliban suicide bomber who has read about your genuine cadpat items, including helmet covers, flags etc, getting one of his buddies here to mail him a set so he can walk right up to the closest checkpoint overseas and kill some of my buddies.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Apr 2006)

AFman said:
			
		

> Well, I hope I didn't receive illegal combats becuase I really respect soldiers, foreign and domestic. And I know some get mad at the idea of a 15 year old gaining a uniform that shouldn't be obtainable by civvies. Well, all I can tell you is the combats there have the same properties as the real ones, flag patch, tilted pockets, insignia flap, and draw strings inside. The guy there has civvie copies and the real ones.



You did recieve illegal combats, there are numerous threads on the topic.  If you want the stuff legally join the CF.


----------



## AFman (17 Apr 2006)

I am completely sorry. I guess I never realized how serious the topic was on the legality of CADPAT. I am terribly sorry.


----------



## Trinity (17 Apr 2006)

SAVE MORE  is the worst store....

Been called Ripmore's since I can remember....

Sort of like how  Honest Johns used to be called dishonest Johns in Pembroke

Do NOT go to Savemore...

go to Sgt Bikos.   Better kit, better prices, better selection, NEW equipment

15% discount for soldiers

and a giant dog....  that attacks Royals (or so I've been told)  


www.sgtbilkos.ca


----------



## mrcpu (17 Apr 2006)

GUNNER2RCR said:
			
		

> I'm not so worried about the 15 year old wearing genuine cadpat around as much as your local Taliban suicide bomber who has read about your genuine cadpat items, including helmet covers, flags etc, getting one of his buddies here to mail him a set so he can walk right up to the closest checkpoint overseas and kill some of my buddies.



I've always felt that argument was a load of bunk:

- It's highly unlikely that TRAINED soldiers (and OUR soldiers are TRAINED!!!!) would let a lone unknown person just walk up without being challenged.

- In order to pull it off you would have to spend a ton of money on all the equipment including getting an M16/C7/AR15 to get close enough to not raise suspicion. You'd have to cut your hair and so on. It would be quite a lot off effort and for what? 

- Since your going to be an unknown person walking up to a checkpoint anyways, wouldn't it just be easier to put on American BDU's (freely available) and walk up to a Canadian checkpoint? This would really mess things up as the CF member at the checkpoint wouldn't really know what your gear should look like to 100% accuracy and would figure you were a messenger or something from the American base camp

- Why bother? Recent history seems to indicate that agressors both in Afghanistan and Iraq don't have much of a problem posing as innocent civilians. In fact, thanks to the way woman are expected to dress in public, it would be simple for a male to dress up in womans cloths and approach a checkpoint with a bomb under his robe and his face covered. Heck, pick up a dead kid from the morgue on the way and carry the kid in your arms and wail.  (And if it's just too far fetched to expect a man there to dress as a woman, well I'm sure they can find a woman who will be a suicide bomber.)

- Why not get your brother to ship you a nice scope, dial it in and sit back a few hundred meters. Better chance you will live to fight again another day.

The point I'm trying to make is that trying to keep CADPATs out of the hands of the public for operational security reasons is a pretty lame excuse when there are 1001 other easier ways for the bad guy to do something nasty and any solider who relies strictly on the clothing of a stranger who is approaching from outside the gate needs to get on the first plane home and back to basic training BEFORE he or she gets someone else killed.

Just my $0.02 worth. But what do I know.


----------



## davidk (17 Apr 2006)

mrcpu, it's just not that simple. The insurgents in Afghanistan are smart enough to know that they have absolutely no chance of winning the fight against us simply by sniping at us. Dressing up as a Canadian soldier (or _any_ allied soldier for that matter) is a frighteningly good way to get close to a convoy and kill people. There's no simple way to stop the flow of American uniforms out there, but just because they're around doesn't justify insurgents using CADPAT. It's all about operational security. Suicide bombers dressed in our uniforms may not be the most common threat around, but I'm sure that by removing even that small threat, buddy overseas will feel a lot more secure.


----------



## AFman (17 Apr 2006)

I was thinking the same thing, many people might not think of CADPAT as a big threat so they won't be prepared for it. That's why they (afghans) might go for the CADPAT mock up. Thats why I removed any and every contact information to the surplus store that kinda screwed me over. Afghans could easily come out of a cave, walk into a CF rest area and blow a bomb. But the same thing could go for the civvie CADPAT. the afghans could convert it into a look-a-like, and for that breif moment of their entrance, we wouldn't no a thing. It is a scary thought.


----------



## mrcpu (17 Apr 2006)

Would wearing just the pants or just the jacket be a criminal offence?

What urks me in some respect is the difference between Canada and the US on this matter.  I personally feel that wearing a pair of CADPAT pants or jacket (not going overboard and wearing a complete set) in public is analogous to wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs or Montreal Canadians OFFICIAL jersey in public. In fact, there are many who would, if they could get ahold of them, wear REAL team jerseys !

If I owned a real CADPAT jacket or pants I would wear them in public as a PROUD Canadian supporting my TEAM!!!  Why do we as Canadians want to punish people who want to wear our team colours and support our CF?


----------



## Trinity (17 Apr 2006)

1)  this is a buy sell thread?!?!?

2) I doubt any of us are qualified SME's on the tactics of and 
current enemy usage of Cadpat.  Speculation here is poor at best
and best left up to a) another thread (that probably exists) and b)
to people with more experience.


----------



## mrcpu (17 Apr 2006)

AFman said:
			
		

> I was thinking the same thing, many people might not think of CADPAT as a big threat so they won't be prepared for it. That's why they (afghans) might go for the CADPAT mock up. Thats why I removed any and every contact information to the surplus store that kinda screwed me over. Afghans could easily come out of a cave, walk into a CF rest area and blow a bomb. But the same thing could go for the civvie CADPAT. the afghans could convert it into a look-a-like, and for that breif moment of their entrance, we wouldn't no a thing. It is a scary thought.



I don't presume to follow every single story coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan, but so far I have yet to hear of this happening, even to the Americans.

Afman, you've brought up a good point.  To just wander up to the checkpoint would only require look-alikes and you'd have to do a DAMN good job, including speaking fluent english and having your ID to get past the checkpoint.

Since the checkpoints are presumeably a forward position to prevent exessive causualties from a suicide bomb, one can argue that the maximum damage a cadpat enabled bomber could do is perhaps 2 or 3 soldiers dead or wounded.  Quite frankly, this is a 1 trick pony since no one would be able to get away with it a second time so I disagree. I think it is more effective to sit back and shoot someone in the head then duck and cover and come back in a few days and repeat as required.

I just don't see CADPAT surplus being any serious risk to our TRAINED soliders in the field.  As mentioned in other posts, I'd be more concerned about people playing dress-up in Canada.


----------



## mrcpu (17 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> 1)  this is a buy sell thread?!?!?
> 
> 2) I doubt any of us are qualified SME's on the tactics of and
> current enemy usage of Cadpat.  Speculation here is poor at best
> ...



SME eh? You must be a project manager!


----------



## spr. mackinnon (17 Apr 2006)

I am really not too sure if all of the people who are wearing any sort of CADPAT, be it real or the frontenac stuff, are actually supporting th CF.  I personally met a guy, who thought he was a hardcore "gangsta", wearing a pair if the fake pants, he did not even know that it was the canadian design.  Now I'm not saying all people who wear it are that oblivious, but come on, how much support are we recieving from people like that guy? Over.


----------



## Centurian1985 (17 Apr 2006)

The line of argument is a bit silly; preventing the use of CADPADS is intended to prevent their use in iCanada when/if infiltrating units here.  

If an Afghani wants a set of CADPADS he will go to the laundry staff at a Canadian camp in the Middle East somewhere and get them to steal a pair...


----------



## PViddy (17 Apr 2006)

CADPAT is a uniform, the Canadian Government issues you this uniform for anything pretaining to military duty, see it as the tools required to do you job.  So when your working for the Queen, the you can wear the duds, when your not- you can't. 

QR&O 36.05 

36.05 – USE OF MATERIEL FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES
    
Except with the permission of the Minister, no materiel may be issued to or used by a member for purposes unrelated to the performance of military duty, recreational activities or his status as a member of the Canadian Forces.

 I have a background in Firefighting, i support my team all the time but i don't wear my turn out gear to Walmart for fun.  Try a T-shirt ? you can even buy fADPAT ones! i don't know why we are different from the states ? but i can see the US having a really hard time controlling gear for all those troops.

my 2 cents.

cheers,

PV


----------



## davidk (18 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> The line of argument is a bit silly; preventing the use of CADPADS is intended to prevent their use in iCanada when/if infiltrating units here.
> 
> If an Afghani wants a set of CADPADS he will go to the laundry staff at a Canadian camp in the Middle East somewhere and get them to steal a pair...



CADPADS? So we're finally getting issued knee and elbow pads? 

Are there any security precautions taken as to Afghani nationals working for the CF over there? If it's that easy to walk out wit a bunch of uniforms, how secure is the rest of our kit?


----------



## mrcpu (18 Apr 2006)

PViddy said:
			
		

> CADPAT is a uniform, the Canadian Government issues you this uniform for anything pretaining to military duty, see it as the tools required to do you job.  So when your working for the Queen, the you can wear the duds, when your not- you can't.
> 
> QR&O 36.05
> 
> ...



I noticed some VERY STRANGE trend here whereby people post quotes from the QR+O's and refer to other military rules and regulations.  Got news for everyone.. 35 million Canadians (give or take) are not in any way shape or form governed by nor subject the Military law in any way! 

What I'm talking about is civilians (in my case ex-reservists) who are FANS.   We want to show our support and wear CF CADPAT pants or jackets because we DO care about our men and woman overseas and darn few Canadians seem to feel the same way  .  I follow the American attitude when it comes to our military and I'm proud of them!      

(Of course, I have to laugh at guys who wear the old garrison dress Canadian Tire Camo jackets!)


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> What I'm talking about is civilians (in my case ex-reservists) who are FANS.   We want to show our support and wear CF CADPAT pants or jackets because we DO care about our men and woman overseas and darn few Canadians seem to feel the same way  .  I follow the American attitude when it comes to our military and I'm proud of them!



Uh . . . . can you explain exactly how a civiian (ex-Reservist or other) wearing CADPAT pants demonstrates support for the Army?

And how is that message distinctly different from the types wearing Surplus Store chic?  Or cast off Garrison Dress jackets?


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I noticed some VERY STRANGE trend here whereby people post quotes from the QR+O's and refer to other military rules and regulations.  Got news for everyone.. 35 million Canadians (give or take) are not in any way shape or form governed by nor subject the Military law in any way!



Quite true, but they ARE governed by Criminal law:  Section 419 of the Canadian Criminal Code (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267591.html#Section-419) reads, in part:

"419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a  *uniform* of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,....

....is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."


----------



## Trinity (18 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> 35 million Canadians (give or take) are not in any way shape or form governed by nor subject the Military law in any way!



I want to disagree with that.

Civilians can fall under certain statues in military law.  There are a few of them they can break.
I don't have the QR&O's in front me of, maybe someone else can find one or two of them
before I get a chance to find them.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I don't have the QR&O's in front me of . . .



Yes you do:  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/intro_e.asp


----------



## Trinity (18 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Yes you do:  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/intro_e.asp



That's way too much work.  I just got diagnosed with kidney stones and its my birthday.

Can't you let me sluff this off just one time?!


----------



## Redeye (18 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> Would wearing just the pants or just the jacket be a criminal offence?
> 
> What urks me in some respect is the difference between Canada and the US on this matter.  I personally feel that wearing a pair of CADPAT pants or jacket (not going overboard and wearing a complete set) in public is analogous to wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs or Montreal Canadians OFFICIAL jersey in public. In fact, there are many who would, if they could get ahold of them, wear REAL team jerseys !
> 
> If I owned a real CADPAT jacket or pants I would wear them in public as a PROUD Canadian supporting my TEAM!!!  Why do we as Canadians want to punish people who want to wear our team colours and support our CF?



Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I can't stand people wearing CADPAT who aren't in a full uniform that's been issued to them.  Why?  Simple.  It's not "team colours", it's not "supporting the troops", it's wearing a piece of clothing that is intended to distinctly identify members of a particular group - a group in this case to which the wearer DOES NOT BELONG.  Chances are, said individual is wearing the item incorrectly, looks slovenly, and in the worst case, may actually be mistaken for one of us looking like that.  Nothing infuriates me more.  The worst I've seen is a bunch of paintball/airsoft idiots strutting around in public in a hodgepodge of different uniforms, all worn improperly, in such a manner as to lead the general public to believe they were members of the armed forces.  I was sickened by it.

Simply put, if you want to wear CADPAT, go see a recruiter and join up.  Otherwise, you haven't earned the right.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> That's way too much work.  I just got diagnosed with kidney stones and its my birthday.
> 
> Can't you let me sluff this off just one time?!



What do you think this is? Army.sympathy.ca?

Keep that up and I'll have one of the staff barbarians get medieval on your profile.

Oh, and Happy Birthday to your kidney stones.  Hope the treatment goes well.


----------



## Trinity (18 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What do you think this is? Army.sympathy.ca?



There are a lot of offences that say "any person"  not just a service member.  That, to me, 
would include any civilian.  Scoutfinch will have to weigh in on the matter considering her status
as a lawyer.  

But one I'm sure a civilian could be charged with...  

QR0
103.11 – OFFENCE OF BEING A SPY
	  	

(1) Section 78 of the National Defence Act provides:
	  	
"78. Every person who spies for the enemy is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Apr 2006)

For anyone interested here are some of the links regarding genuine authentic CADPAT uniforms and the whos and whys it is illegal for someone outside the CF to have them.  So before people get all bent out of shape about some jihadist possibly or not possibly getting their hands on our uniforms, read these reads, this has all been covered before, and recently too (like last month)


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16339.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35975.0.html

I don't if the mods can lock this, or make one super-sticky thread about CADPAT and legal issues surrounding its use.


----------



## PViddy (18 Apr 2006)

> What I'm talking about is civilians (in my case ex-reservists) who are FANS.   We want to show our support and wear CF CADPAT pants or jackets because we DO care about our men and woman overseas and darn few Canadians seem to feel the same way  .  I follow the American attitude when it comes to our military and I'm proud of them!
> 
> (Of course, I have to laugh at guys who wear the old garrison dress Canadian Tire Camo jackets!)



If you are indeed, an *Ex* reservist, you should make that more apparent in your profile.

cheers

PV


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> There are a lot of offences that say "any person"  not just a service member.  That, to me,
> would include any civilian.  Scoutfinch will have to weigh in on the matter considering her status
> as a lawyer.
> 
> ...



You would pick the most peculiar section of the NDA as an example.  Per section 60(1)(h), if you are an alleged spy for the enemy you are subject to the NDA.  Without that saving provision under 60(1)(h), no dice.  Most of the NDA applies only to those subject to the NDA, as defined in sections 60-65; mostly, it means the Regular Force at all times, the Special Force (when constituted) at all times, and Reserve Force members under an arcane and convoluted set of circumstances that lawyers often fret over (in one notable case, a reservist refused to attend his own court-martial, was ordered arrested by the judge, who then concluded that he as a judge lacked the requisite legal authority to try the member for not attending his own court martial).

Getting back on topic, the main reason charges are laid against service members over the sale of CADPAT clothing is that it is not the property of the member; it is signed out to them but remains the property of the crown.  An individual who sells CADPAT clothing does not have legal title to it; that is, in selling it, they are defrauding the buyer, as they have no clear title to the goods to convey (I think that's proper legal terminology, IANAL).  And, in selling it, they are committing an act of theft against the crown.


----------



## Centurian1985 (18 Apr 2006)

Ref to military law and civilians, I believe civilians are bound by military law when they are on  DND property (i.e. traffic regulations) but Im not sure if they are bound by every law.  The only time I recall them being under all DND laws is when they are deployed as dependents (which eneded with the shut-down of bases from Germany); there may be other exceptions to this? 

Back to CADPAT, I was informed by former MP co-workers that although they could try to go after a civilian who possessed CADPAT and was wearing it in public, the problem was so systemic that they couldnt go after EVERY civilian who was wearing it, and in the end would only lead to bad public relations especially if the clothing worn was a knock-off.  They did enthusiastically go after any CF or former CF member (reg or reserve) who attempted to sell their issued clothing as this did not require them to coordinate their actions with RCMP or city police forces or legal departments. However, I dont think they were applying section 419, rather it had to do with the 'sale of crown assets'  that did not belong to them (the people selling the items did not OWN them).


----------



## spr. mackinnon (18 Apr 2006)

I wholeheartedly with Piper, that if they want to show support, for the army, buy a t-shirt, dont wear the CADPAT, and by the way, it just looks dumb.


----------



## mrcpu (21 Apr 2006)

PViddy said:
			
		

> If you are indeed, an *Ex* reservist, you should make that more apparent in your profile.
> 
> cheers
> 
> PV



Huh?  I clearly state my previous unit and MOC.  I didn't put my rank but it was CPL.


----------



## mrcpu (21 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I want to disagree with that.
> 
> Civilians can fall under certain statues in military law.  There are a few of them they can break.
> I don't have the QR&O's in front me of, maybe someone else can find one or two of them
> before I get a chance to find them.



Read 1.03 – PERSONS SUBJECT TO QR&O on http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch001_e.asp#1.03 and explain to me which of:

(a) the Regular Force;

(b) the Special Force;

c) the Reserve Force when subject to the Code of Service Discipline; and 

(d) unless the Minister otherwise directs, any person not mentioned in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) if the person is subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member who becomes a prisoner of war continues to be subject to QR&O and all orders and instructions issued to the Canadian Forces under authority of the National Defence Act.

applies to civilians.  IN FACT I would read it that Reservists aren't always subject to the QR+O's all the time either, but I'm not sure what that would mean as part of this discussion.


----------



## PViddy (21 Apr 2006)

> Huh?  I clearly state my previous unit and MOC.  I didn't put my rank but it was CPL



Indeed, but it does not say "former" or "ex" or any other word to denote a pass tense....anyways, your an ex reservist....neat.  

weather your subject to the QR & O's or not, personally i think wearing a cadpat jacket with jeans or whatever to show support would look kinda dumb, as well as bring discredit to the uniform.  
Buy a t-shirt or those yellow stickers they have at the CANNEX that says "we support our troops" i think that would get the message across ? 

cheers

PV


----------



## mrcpu (21 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Quite true, but they ARE governed by Criminal law:  Section 419 of the Canadian Criminal Code (http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267591.html#Section-419) reads, in part:
> 
> "419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
> 
> ...



Well if you read the whole thing again it says "that it is likely to be mistaken"  the idea here is not to prevent someone from wearing a surplus jacket of any kind but to prevent someone from dressing up in complete combats or other uniform and being mistaken for a member of the CF (or other military).  One might argue that a cadet in uniform is probably mistaken for a CF member by 50% of the population that ass-um-e from the uniform.  

I  would bet that no judge in the whole country would convict someone under this particular section for walking around with a combat jacket on and a pair of jeans or a CF bushcap etc.

My biggest issue with this topic is the whole double standard that seems to be applied between CADPAT and other uniform parts.


----------



## mrcpu (21 Apr 2006)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Indeed, but it does not say "former" or "ex" or any other word to denote a pass tense....anyways, your an ex reservist....neat.
> 
> weather your subject to the QR & O's or not, personally i think wearing a cadpat jacket with jeans or whatever to show support would look kinda dumb, as well as bring discredit to the uniform.
> Buy a t-shirt or those yellow stickers they have at the CANNEX that says "we support our troops" i think that would get the message across ?
> ...



I wasn't sure where to put "ex" or "former" in the profile. Perhaps a field designating this specifically that I missed?  That's why I left my rank blank.  I realize that normally one doesn't put (R) after an NCO rank but I just updated my profile to include "CPL (Retired)".  

I want to point something out with regards to my own past experiences as a "civie" wearing OD combats.  Being a "fan" of the military from an early age led me too become an Air Cadet.  As such I purchased OD combats which I often would wear the jacket or boots or pants to school but I never put the whole thing on and went to school( as I've seen guys walking around in full woodland tracksuits lately!)

I loved my combats.  Having them for me was like having a Blue Jays jersey!  When I turned 17 I immediately joined the reserves, in part because I was looking forward to being issued full combats.

Not long ago I considered re-enlisting in the reserves, probably in a comms squadron as I work in IT and play in Amateur Radio.  One of the things that interested me was to be issued CADPATS!  Other things have happened (life!) so I haven't re-enlisted but I will say again;

I believe strongly that there are many people who wear a combat jacket or pants in an effort to identify with a part of Canada that they are proud of and as such I do not think this is wrong. In fact, if someone is so inclined as to only want REAL CADPAT pants or a jacket, I find it highly unlikely that he or she would be a gang-banger. The gang-banger type isn't even going to comprehend the difference!

On another note, I was watching Regenisis and this character who was a street kid in New York was wearing a REAL CADPAT combat jacket over top of his grey hoodie sweater and ripped jeans.  I wasn't offended.

We can either alienate Canadian civies from the military or be thankful when they show a positive interest.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Apr 2006)

> I believe strongly that there are many people who wear a combat jacket or pants in an effort to identify with a part of Canada that they are proud of and as such I do not think this is wrong.



It says "walt/wannabe" to me - not supporter - and, has been pointed out - it's illegal.  Full stop.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What do you think this is? Army.sympathy.ca?
> Keep that up and I'll have one of the staff barbarians get medieval on your profile.



Oops, sorry I'm late Boss, ......did you call me?


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Apr 2006)

Point of Interest


I recently "discussed" the wearing of issue ( or "once-issue" ) CADPAT uniforms with a member of the Regimental Cadet Corps...

He purchased said jacket at a local surplus store.........no S/N or name in said jacket....of course
SB


----------



## Redeye (22 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I wasn't sure where to put "ex" or "former" in the profile. Perhaps a field designating this specifically that I missed?  That's why I left my rank blank.  I realize that normally one doesn't put (R) after an NCO rank but I just updated my profile to include "CPL (Retired)".
> 
> I want to point something out with regards to my own past experiences as a "civie" wearing OD combats.  Being a "fan" of the military from an early age led me too become an Air Cadet.  As such I purchased OD combats which I often would wear the jacket or boots or pants to school but I never put the whole thing on and went to school( as I've seen guys walking around in full woodland tracksuits lately!)
> 
> ...



First off, "Ex-Cpl" would be the proper means by which to identify yourself.

Secondly, it would seem, your feelings aside, that the vast majority of us find individuals wearing CADPAT kit when they are not CF members offensive, annoying, repugnant, etc.  Identifying with someone you're not in a arcane way is hardly a way to show support for the troops, it's just pathetic.  When I see someone in CADPAT clothing, I don't think "hey that guy supports us", I roll my eyes, often swear under my breath, and then have to carry on before losing my composure.  I can't stand it, that's the only way I can put it.  Clearly I'm not alone in that train of thought.

Thirdly, if your main reason for wanting to rejoin is CADPAT kit, I'm not put off by your having decided not to do so.  I'd want to see much better motivating factors rather than Shiny Kit being your reasoning!

Fourthly, military law aside, there is something in the Criminal Code (to which all in Canada are subject) about wearing of military and other uniforms to which one is not entitled.  Can't remember what exactly, and too busy to get references.

Saying "don't wear our stuff" isn't alienating, it's preserving our idendity.  It is about keeping a symbol of the sacrifices we've all made to various degrees (and admittedly in comparison to many mine are very trivial) to ourselves.  Ideally I think CADPAT should be only for those who's earned it.  Allowing it wide circulation just invites more posers/Walter Mittys.  Generally that sort of thing brings disgrace upon us


----------



## mrcpu (22 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> It says "walt/wannabe" to me - not supporter - and, has been pointed out - it's illegal.  Full stop.



a) everyone was a wannabe before they became

b) wearing a CF combat jacket with a pair of jeans...as has been pointed out... IS NOT illegal. Full stop.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> b) wearing a CF combat jacket with a pair of jeans...as has been pointed out... IS NOT illegal. Full stop.



That very well may be but it just screams "idot".  You want to show your support for the CF, print it on a t-shirt or get one of those ribbons.

also, IMHO, 5 years of pres does not make you "retired"....it makes you "i got out"


----------



## Wookilar (22 Apr 2006)

Going to jump in here and be the devil's advocate on this one:

Why do we sell it? (and it is legal to buy and sell, as long as it's from crown assets) Why did we sell the old combats? And boots? And every thing else we've ever been issued that can be bought, legally, at any surplus store.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with just about everything that Redeye is saying. However, despite what many of us here feel (and common sense nowadays would tell us) about selling issued kit to anybody that has not earned the privilege of wearing it, official policy seems to be for crown assets to make as much money...I mean recover some of the cost that was initially incured in purchasing said equipment.

It would seem that a major policy change is required and not just shredding the CADPAT uniforms that are disposed of.

Personally, the Airborne t-shirts that I see flat-faces wearing makes me more upset than anything else.

I especially like the "Walter Mitty" ref.  ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Apr 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> also, IMHO, 5 years of pres does not make you "retired"....it makes you "i got out"



Ten years is retired.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Apr 2006)

Redeye said:
			
		

> First off, "Ex-Cpl" would be the proper means by which to identify yourself.


Hmmm. Good point.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Secondly, it would seem, your feelings aside, that the vast majority of us find individuals wearing CADPAT kit when they are not CF members offensive, annoying, repugnant, etc.  Identifying with someone you're not in a arcane way is hardly a way to show support for the troops, it's just pathetic.  When I see someone in CADPAT clothing, I don't think "hey that guy supports us", I roll my eyes, often swear under my breath, and then have to carry on before losing my composure.  I can't stand it, that's the only way I can put it.  Clearly I'm not alone in that train of thought.



One think that CF and retired CF members, regular and reserve probably all agree on is that we would fight and if need be die for the RIGHT to have ones opinion, even if we disagree! 



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Thirdly, if your main reason for wanting to rejoin is CADPAT kit, I'm not put off by your having decided not to do so.  I'd want to see much better motivating factors rather than Shiny Kit being your reasoning!



LOL! No!!! Shiny kit wasn't even close to being the main reason, it was an attractive part of the package!  One of my main reasons was the change in the international climate and the fact that I have 3 kids and want them to grow up in as safe a world as possible.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Fourthly, military law aside, there is something in the Criminal Code (to which all in Canada are subject) about wearing of military and other uniforms to which one is not entitled.  Can't remember what exactly, and too busy to get references.



Nothing in the CCC would apply to someone wearing a combat jacket or pair of combat pants, seperate from each other.  It is there to protect people from someone dressing up in a complete uniform and being mistaken for a member of the CF.  It always comes down to the "Reasonable Person" on the street.  Does the "Reasonable Person", when seeing someone walking around with a US BDU jacket or a CF combat jacket  with a pair of jeans and running shoes on, believe this person is an on-duty or active member of the military? No.. of course not!

My biggest beef after lurking around here for a while and reading is the way members of this board throw around their mis-interpretation of the law and try to say that wearing uniform parts is illegal, even trying to apply QR+Os against civilians!


----------



## Trinity (22 Apr 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Why do we sell it? (and it is legal to buy and sell, as long as it's from crown assets) Why did we sell the old combats? And boots? And every thing else we've ever been issued that can be bought, legally, at any surplus store.



We don't

Cadpat is shredded after is use.

Its the aftermarket stuff, using cadpat in "non" CF designs you may be thinking of.

No CF issue cadpat item can be surplus...  although there was an incident of 2 tri walls being accidentally sold.

ArmyVern has posted somewhere on here in regards to that. 


Edit : clarify one sentence

Irony - the Padre responding to someone playing devil's advocate...  


EDIT AGAIN at 1450.....  

Sorry.. though you were refering specifically to cadpat.  Thus, my response is off track.
Why, because it makes money and we're poor.  Doesn't mean we have to like it as
members of the CF.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Apr 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> That very well may be but it just screams "idot".  You want to show your support for the CF, print it on a t-shirt or get one of those ribbons.
> 
> also, IMHO, 5 years of pres does not make you "retired"....it makes you "i got out"



LOL! Actually it makes me "I quit"!


----------



## mrcpu (22 Apr 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Going to jump in here and be the devil's advocate on this one:
> 
> Why do we sell it? (and it is legal to buy and sell, as long as it's from crown assets) Why did we sell the old combats? And boots? And every thing else we've ever been issued that can be bought, legally, at any surplus store.



That's probably a much better question!


----------



## Wookilar (22 Apr 2006)

Sorry, Padre, but I worked (part-time) for the store in question that received those triwalls "by accident." There were a lot more than 2 triwalls of it, all told. Scotty would have run out of it long before now if that's all there was. That wording is someone at 7 CFSD trying to cover their nether regions.

The contract for disposal was for all clothing out of Edmonton Garrison, it never defferentiated between uniforms (CF, work dress or combats). Whatever was disposed of was what we got. There are (or I should say, used to be, this was 2 years ago) seperate contracts on leather (i.e. boots) and canvas (tentage). The original wording in the contracts stipulated that the items must be issued to the reciever in the same condition it was received by the R&D cell. Now, all CADPAT is being shredded. I would hope that the contracts were changed in a proper manner. The contracts last for the fiscal year, and require (at the time) a $5000 performance bond by the winner of the contract.

Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough (need more practice at advocating, it seems). CADPAT may be shredded now, but we are still selling it. And webbing, and combat boots, and CF's, etc. Doesn't it seem that the time to change the applicable laws and regs (civy and mil) is now? 

Oh, and it is still legal to sell/buy CADPAT (hence all the knock-offs/copycats). They tried to shut the store down over it, didn't work, still selling it. It's just become SOP to shred CADPAT. We need solid policy change, not knee-jerk reaction from somebody trying to cover their @ss. Anyone with two clues knows it's a bad idea to sell CADPAT uniforms on the open market.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Apr 2006)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> LOL! Actually it makes me "I quit"!



How's this! I changed my rank to CPL (Q) for CPL Quit  ;D

( vs CPL (R) which IMHO really should only be used if one stayed in and got a pension! )


----------



## Trinity (22 Apr 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Sorry, Padre, but I worked (part-time) for the store in question that received those triwalls "by accident." There were a lot more than 2 triwalls of it, all told. Scotty would have run out of it long before now if that's all there was. That wording is someone at 7 CFSD trying to cover their nether regions.



NO need to be sorry.  Glad to be corrected when I'm wrong  (I said WRONG PEOPLE.. not all the time!  )

I heard 2 tri walls.. not sure if it was here or another surplus store passed the info on to me.. probably here.

Wow, more than two eh?  Nice.. must have been pretty faded though since it was the earlier runs. 

Thanks for the update.

Blessings


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Apr 2006)

> wearing a CF combat jacket with a pair of jeans...as has been pointed out... IS NOT illegal. Full stop



Yes, it IS - and I'm not prepared to argue the point further - particularly against one who obviously didn't have the wherewithal to stick it out and now wants to parade around in a pseudo soldier suit...  Right "Cpl Quit"?


----------



## PViddy (24 Apr 2006)

> My biggest beef after lurking around here for a while and reading is the way members of this board throw around their mis-interpretation of the law and try to say that wearing uniform parts is illegal, even trying to apply QR+Os against civilians!



Dude, 

if you mean the QR & O reference from my previous post ? now that you have your profile sorted out,  can now dechipher that you are indeed a civi.  You don't get Psychic powers until you make Lt.  

cheers,

PV


----------



## Centurian1985 (25 Apr 2006)

I see a lot of poor and homeless people wearing parts of *Canadian* (edited - ack! Sorry Trinity!) combat uniforms (combat jackets, pants, old camo unit jackets), mostly because these items get donated to the Salvation Army and other thrift stores, and are sold cheap.  

Should we charge them for wearing parts of military uniforms and throw them in jail too?


----------



## Trinity (25 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I see a lot of poor and homeless people wearing parts of *Canandian* combat uniforms (combat jackets, pants, old camo unit jackets), mostly because these items get donated to the Salvation Army and other thrift stores, and are sold cheap.
> 
> Should we charge them for wearing parts of military uniforms and throw them in jail too?



Stop trolling....

He said it was illegal.. he never said lets aggressively go out and prosecute or even prosecute at all.  

Also, I dispute your claim.  Although I have seen a few, to say "a lot of poor" is factually baseless and
not plausible.  Being in Toronto for my 13 years, I have seen and worked many of the shelters set up
by the military and I refute your claim on what they wear.

Finally, you live in the country, learn to spell Canadian right.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Apr 2006)

I can't see the problem of wearing obsolete parts of the uniform as long as all insignias have been removed (i.e. name tags, rank, etc). But when it comes to the current in-service uniforms then there should be something done about that.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Apr 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> I can't see the problem of wearing obsolete parts of the uniform as long as all insignias have been removed (i.e. name tags, rank, etc). But when it comes to the current in-service uniforms then there should be something done about that.



Excellent point.

At the risk of getting involved in this discussion again, I'll clarify why I believe that wearing current issue uniform items is illegal - the title of this thread is "Military Law/CADPAT" after all.

First, if you're wearing a genuine issue CADPAT jacket (for example), you're very likely in receipt of stolen goods.  This was a major issue here in Edmonton, when some items were inadvertently released to a Surplus store, but 99% of "real" items you'll find have been thieved in one way or another, sometimes by NES Reservists selling their kit.

Second, the wear of current issue uniforms is likely in violation (IMHO) of the letter of the Criminal Code section regarding such things (quoted above), particularly if badges and ranks are worn.  This is not an issue with regards to surplus obsolete uniforms that have been disposed of in accordance with regulations.  If someone wants to wear a "bus driver" jacket or the old "garrison dress" (although I cannot imagine why!), they can fill their boots.

Trinity's right - this is never prosecuted and I'm not sure it would be a good application of resources.  However, by the letter of the law...  :-\

Frankly, I'm still mystified as to how wearing a piece of uniform shows "support" for the CF and suspect that the idea has more "walt" than "supporter" behind it.

TR


----------



## Centurian1985 (25 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Stop trolling....
> 
> He said it was illegal.. he never said lets aggressively go out and prosecute or even prosecute at all.
> 
> ...



Trolling - no; I went back and reread the thread and it appears that two key statements were referring only to CADPAT.  My error. Mouth engaged before brain processed.

Illegal - what is the point of making an action illegal if you are not going to enforce it and prosecute offenders? Hmmm...deterence only then?

Claim - ok, 'a lot' is subjective and open to interpretation... however, I see it in this town...it would be credible to say up to 2-4% of those visible to the general public, between 1 in 50 and 1 in 25 persons from economically challenged backgrounds wearing some type or part of an old military uniform.  Average income here is less than $30,000 per year across a population of 140,000 people.  

Spelling - I deserve a smack for that one! I have fixed my error, must have been hit with typodyslexia on that one...  

Trinity - the padre sure knows how to come out swinging!


----------



## wakingheart (3 Oct 2006)

My 2cents,

On the subject of supporting the military as a "Fan" wearing complete CADPAT gear, this is unacceptable even from a civilian perspective. Unless of course the uniform is severely modified, it would be unethical to deny a means of expression to a Canadian Citizen. During Vietnam they where widely used as a means of Anti-War protest..whether of not a particular individual agrees is irrelevant and the right to be used for political demonstration should be preserved so long as it is modified and it does not present a threat to National security.

What is the intention on the legal issues surrounding CADPAT, Theft for one and a security necessity. There is a large security issue of civilian impersonating soldiers, there are many applications that would be detrimental towards society because of the authority the uniform represents. In this respect I think this law is completely accurate and justified.

Though I do not think it should apply to Paintball/Airsoft players, as camouflage is a necessity of these sports but they should not be worn off the field. Though they should have noticeable different epaulets, shoulder titles.... so as to distinguish as much as possible from the Canadian forces uniforms.

As to the comment on homeless individuals, I doubt that there is any risk of them being misinterpreted as a member of the Canadian forces. The only liability I could see would be Veteran impersonation. Which all be it insulting, would be ridiculous to in-force.


----------



## niner domestic (3 Oct 2006)

On a slightly off topic but minor poi nt...In the US, 1/3 of homeless persons have served their country.  So the next time you pass what you consider a homeless person wearing any surplused gear, stop and ask if they are a CF or foreign military member.  You'd be surprised at how many are.  If knowing that a homeless person who is wearing surplused mil gear is a former member of any military change your mind? 
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1

Oh and female vets are becoming the fastest growing group of homeless persons.  Scary and very sad.


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2006)

Please say it isn't so. We've just re-opened a six month old thread again today to beat around a topic that's been beaten to death in so many threads here it's crazy. Go to the clothing threads....they almost all eventually bring this topic up....as do the cadet threads.

The laws/rules etc and their enforcement/lack there-of have been bandied about and quoted numerous times already. I'm over it already....and I'm a Supply Tech.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2008)

Just to refresh everyone's memories, after EbaySeller began SPAMMING the site with items that (s)he was selling on Ebay.


----------



## medaid (2 Sep 2008)

There are WAY too many issued items and kits on eBay. I looked through it and I can say there are a fair bit of kit that should NOT have ended up there.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> There are WAY too many issued items and kits on eBay. I looked through it and I can say there are a fair bit of kit that should NOT have ended up there.



Did you take note of who was selling the kit?  Was this kit being sold by several different people/'collectors', or are they all being sold by the same person?  Do you have the MPs on Speed Dial?


----------



## Franko (2 Sep 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> There are WAY too many issued items and kits on eBay. I looked through it and I can say there are a fair bit of kit that should NOT have ended up there.



That's because it's more than likely stolen kit.

Regards


----------



## Strike (2 Sep 2008)

I sent the following to the seller (EBay Seller here):



> Dear 780_collingwood,
> 
> I would like to know how you cam about the tac vest, knee/elbow pads, snow shoes, and bayonet, as they are all still in the current scale of issue for the military. Did you get these through legitimate means?



The reply:



> They are mine I did my time and earned them



Anyone have the number for the MPs in Edmonton?  Seems the seller is located in AB.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Sep 2008)

Military Police -  973-4011 Ext 4044


----------



## Franko (2 Sep 2008)

> They are mine I did my time and earned them



How the hell do you _earn_ kit?

Oh, I get it....just don't turn it in.      

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> > They are mine I did my time and earned them



Someone really doesn't know what they are talking about.  No one earns these items by "doing their time".  That means they are stolen Government issued items, not returned on Release.  If these items were Written off, then someone lied on a "Loss Damage Report".  Still a crime.  Fraud.


----------



## Strike (2 Sep 2008)

Just sent a message (via Facebook) to a friend who's an MP over there, along with links to the item.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Sep 2008)

I'm in the process of flagging all the items as stolen to ebay


----------



## armyvern (2 Sep 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> I sent the following to the seller (EBay Seller here):
> 
> The reply:
> 
> Anyone have the number for the MPs in Edmonton?  Seems the seller is located in AB.



Ohhhh

Thank you so much for the Dear (and it's follow-up)  

Such numpty people some thieves are. 

There's a sup tech out there in Edmonton who's reporting it this morning. As soon as he logs in here --- I'm sure he'll be viewing this thread to pick up the pertinent info from your post.

Thanks muchly.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2008)

Just a note:

I removed both Topics this morning.  Mike removed the Links in them last night.


----------



## armyvern (2 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone really doesn't know what they are talking about.  No one earns these items by "doing their time".  That means they are stolen Government issued items, not returned on Release.  If these items were Written off, then someone lied on a "Loss Damage Report".  Still a crime.  Fraud.



And, that is exactly it. He would have had to turn them in to clear (they're CTAT/ITAR items) --- that's NOT what's occured.

What occured is he either reported his lost or stolen (ie he lied as you said) and had them re-issued with a write-off occuring for the original items from his charge. Absolutely 100% fraudulent actions on Government paperwork and theft.

MOST likely though - he stole these items from one of his "buddies", perhaps even a coursemate; and SCREWED them out of their kit - making them submit MLRs when their items "somehow, mysteriously, got lost). Ni-iice. Absolutely 100% fraudulent actions on Government paperwork AND theft.

Yep, he earned his damned kit all right ... and every cent of it that gets written-off due to his "earning" it ... somes out of the budget that you ladies and gents are supported with. It may only be a 20 dollar widget, but take that 20 dollars and multiply it by the sheer volume of thiefs who abscond with YOUR stuff to make themselves a dime ... and it all adds up to quite a few hundred chest rigs.

Let me say it again, and be clear: I HATE THIEVES. There's no place for them in this outfit - let 'em rot in jail.


----------



## Franko (2 Sep 2008)

Seems he lives in Beaumont, AB....Edmonton MPs love to travel.

Someone who isn't in anymore is going to JAIL!

Regards


----------



## midget-boyd91 (2 Sep 2008)

Now remember folks, if anyone living in or around Edmonton notces in their local newspapers within the next days or weeks, a story about an Ebay seller facing charges for attempting to sell Canadian Kit..... scan and post that story here.  

Midget


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2008)

I hope they find out who's selling this stuff. 

I hate to burst your bubble folks, but the person(s) who are alleged to have sold issue kit on E-Bay may not do ANY jail time at all. 
I've seen murderers get six months jail time, so a guy who sells stuff on e-bay may not get any time.


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Sep 2008)

Holy Crap!! I just went onto ebay to see what all the fuss was about and WOW   I'm flabbergasted.  And it's not just Shirts and pants - there's ICE, IECS, bivi bags, LCV's, footwear - good Lord it's a veritable smorgasbord of kit that our troops badly need in theatre. How do people get away with this s*%t?


----------



## Strike (2 Sep 2008)

WRT the shirts and pants, take a close look.  Many of those items are actually fakes.  Same material, but there's enough of a difference in the design that any CF member can tell it's not issued with a quick glance if someone is wearing it.  Not illegal.  The other stuff?  I'd have to take a look.


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Sep 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> WRT the shirts and pants, take a close look.  Many of those items are actually fakes.  Same material, but there's enough of a difference in the design that any CF member can tell it's not issued with a quick glance if someone is wearing it.  Not illegal.  The other stuff?  I'd have to take a look.



Yes, I saw the fake stuff. I was one of the first ones Wheelers heard from when they started manufacturing their kit. I know the difference - maybe you haven't seen many of my posts, but i'm a Supply Tech with 18 years experience - I know an NSN when I see it. So you go ahead and "Take a look" at the other stuff and i'll still tell you  it's real - i've issued it and worn it.


----------



## Strike (2 Sep 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Yes, I saw the fake stuff. I was one of the first ones Wheelers heard from when they started manufacturing their kit. I know the difference - maybe you haven't seen many of my posts, but i'm a Supply Tech with 18 years experience - I know an NSN when I see it. So you go ahead and "Take a look" at the other stuff and i'll still tell you  it's real - i've issued it and worn it.



Going through it right now.  At least the AirSoft guy is easy to find.  Seems all his gear is his own design...thankfully.  Getting a list together right now to forward to my MP friend in AB, as that seems to be where most of it is coming from.


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Sep 2008)

This is real:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Army-Cadpat-Gortex-Bivy-Bag_W0QQitemZ170256906562QQihZ007QQcategoryZ36071QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

&

http://cgi.ebay.ca/CF-Canadian-Forces-Cadpat-Issued-Uniform-Shirt_W0QQitemZ230285651725QQihZ013QQcategoryZ104023QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

&

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Military-CADPAT-Tactical-Vest_W0QQitemZ130251355461QQihZ003QQcategoryZ36071QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

&

http://cgi.ebay.ca/CADPAT-Small-Pack-System_W0QQitemZ140262930669QQihZ004QQcategoryZ36071QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And that's just for starters!!  Yes, I do believe the AirSoft stuff is his own design with the non-treated cadpat fabric (Wheelers had to prove to us in Gagetown that it wasn't DND issued fabric when we questioned it's existence!!)


----------



## Wookilar (2 Sep 2008)

So...I can't get a small pack (in part) because of bozos selling them on ebay?

Now, I do know that some surplus stores have what "appears" (to me) to be the new issued kit, and I know there is (was , 3 years ago) a surplus store in the Edmonton area that had authorization for....restricted(?) kit...that's not the right word.....they had the contract for disposal of cadpat items (which has since ceased I believe?), nvg's......other stuff like that....

Could some of this stuff be old stock that was disposed of? (I know one shop had a couple of Mat Techs working for them part time to repair items and resell them).... I do not know what the current rules are for disposal through Crown Assests.

Wook


----------



## Franko (2 Sep 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I hope they find out who's selling this stuff.
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble folks, but the person(s) who are alleged to have sold issue kit on E-Bay may not do ANY jail time at all.
> I've seen murderers get six months jail time, so a guy who sells stuff on e-bay may not get any time.



I'm talking DB Edmonton.       

You can still be hauled in and charged for offenses committed during your service.

Theft of DND kit, especially OPRESTRICTED kit, is a big no-no. Bayonets are still considered a weapon aren't they?

Regards


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2008)

Recce by Death:

I wouldn't count on DB either. Nice thought!

The way the Canadian "Justice" industry works, we'll be lucky to charge him with theft under $5000.00.


----------



## armyvern (2 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> So...I can't get a small pack (in part) because of bozos selling them on ebay?
> 
> Now, I do know that some surplus stores have what "appears" (to me) to be the new issued kit, and I know there is (was , 3 years ago) a surplus store in the Edmonton area that had authorization for....restricted(?) kit...that's not the right word.....they had the contract for disposal of cadpat items (which has since ceased I believe?), nvg's......other stuff like that....
> 
> ...



Uhmmm almost.

There was a surplus store in Edmonton that purchased a "lot" of scrap textile via CADC from R&D Section Edmonton.

When that surplus store opened up the triwalls --- they found cadpat uniforms that had somehow NOT been shredded as they should have been. DND/CF attempted to get these items back and the surplus store refused. Legal action was threatened etc etc.

Simply put, it was an error. A BIG one. A fluke. NOT the standard and certainly NOT allowable or legal IAW CTAT/ITAR regulations. Cadpat MUST be rendered unusable via shredding BEFORE it is reported to CADC, or before it is binned into the dumpster should CADC not be able to auction it off for us.

Knee pads etc came into the system in very late 2004/early2005. All after AFTER the Edmonton mixup. 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25680/post-371668.html#msg371668

That Edmonton stuff was sold years ago. It's not the same stuff. This guy is a thief -- it really is that simple.

Any item that incorporates the "cadpat" pattern in it design/colour scheme ... can not be sold unless it has been reduced to - essentially .. rags.


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Sep 2008)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> So...I can't get a small pack (in part) because of bozos selling them on ebay?
> 
> Now, I do know that some surplus stores have what "appears" (to me) to be the new issued kit, and I know there is (was , 3 years ago) a surplus store in the Edmonton area that had authorization for....restricted(?) kit...that's not the right word.....they had the contract for disposal of cadpat items (which has since ceased I believe?), nvg's......other stuff like that....
> 
> ...



As Vern said (just to reiterate) the ONLY  acceptable means of disposal for anything that contains our Canadian Disruptive Pattern is shredding.


----------



## geo (2 Sep 2008)

...shredding - using a glorified tree chipper..... Vroom, vroom!!!


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Sep 2008)

Hello to all most joyous members.

Hummmmm,

WRT the TV, I had a look, now is this a knock off using the available material, and made as best to the original, or is it real?

Unless the item is seen, and tags observed and the material checked for its authenticity, for all we know these could be after market designs.

Secondly, WRT the knee/elbow pads. I am sure there is knock off varieties out there also, again are these real genuine ones or ones produced for the after market.

As for purchasing such items, when John Q Public purchases this stuff for whatever reason, he has no idea that this material may come from a questionable background. For a seller to be charged is one thing, but a buyer, who is showing no criminal intent on buying stoen/illegally aquired goods is another.

Ebay should in fact enforce their policies, but again this is difficult for them as CADPAT real anad CADPAT fake are in my opinion difficult to tell a part, with the exception of a well trained eye?

Ebay is a huge organisation with millions of stuff on line all the time. It is a hit and miss with the Ebay police policing this stuff.

Is it also worth the cost of tieing up MPs for such low cost items?

I guess its a judgement call?? 

Also about obtaining such items at gun shows etc, often items change hands several times, and again the general public do not know the apparent restrictions on genuine CADPAT items. I have even seen real stuff for sale here in Australia, which included NSN marked hats and pers cam nets, with NSN, all were in surplus stores in large quantities, so some how the real stuff does get out.

The nets in question were new in the bag, and I bought two. I also bought one hat, which i cut my grass in, love the kepi design, ha!

I had also obtained (through a Toronto based surplus store), two new CADPAT thermal blankets, with manufactuers and NSN, all legal like, so I wonder how these are being released.

My 2 cents.

OWDU


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Sep 2008)

Let's be clear on something here - it's not the shirt that's classified, it's the IR properties. The term "classified material" is a nonnegotiable term for anyone employed in DND - to breach a security classification is punishable by imprisonment.

I'm no dummy, i've seen all kinds of DND kit for sale in much weirder places than a surplus store. It burns my ass every time. Cadpat however, every single pair i've ever issued and every person i've engaged in conversation about it, i've told - return it WHOLE. Remove the ankle covers for toilet paper - clean it and return those too. I've explained the reasons why and have even given out literature to some. But what I can't do, unfortunately, is police every single loss report that comes across my desk. I promise you and everyone who reads this - I will make an example of the first person I can catch selling classified material.  



> Is it also worth the cost of tieing up MPs for such low cost items?
> 
> I guess its a judgement call??



Not a judgement call my friend, it's called duty and responsibility. Yes, I will tie up the MP's, the Log O, the WCWO AND the Base Commander if I friggin well have to.

Sorry if I come off a little irate OWDU, nothing personal I promise. This is a topic that is close to home for me.


----------



## garb811 (2 Sep 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I'm in the process of flagging all the items as stolen to ebay


Like I said before, please do not flag this stuff as stolen to EBay, report it to your local MP Det.  If EBay pulls the item before we get to the link it makes the investigation much more difficult for us.


----------



## danchapps (3 Sep 2008)

These items were reported for investigation to the MP's this afternoon. By whom you ask??? By me, I may be new to the job, but it pisses me off seeing stuff like this. I may be a hard ass, but it is part of my job.


----------



## garb811 (3 Sep 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> These items were reported for investigation to the MP's this afternoon. By whom you ask??? By me, I may be new to the job, but it pisses me off seeing stuff like this. I may be a hard ass, but it is part of my job.


Great news and thanks.  The only potential problem now is having 4 files get started on each piece of kit but I'd rather have that happen than have this stuff slide between the cracks.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I had also obtained (through a Toronto based surplus store), two new CADPAT thermal blankets, with manufactuers and NSN, all legal like, so I wonder how these are being released.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> OWDU



 :

Because someone who had access to the kit before it's distribution, or while it sat in depot, or while it sat in clothing, or while it sat in a QM ...
When stuff is brand new - it tends to be coming from someone who has access to it in that state, sup techs, storesman, work parties etc.

IF this stuff is out there --- it's STOLEN. It really is that simple. We are NOT allowed to just scrap it in a "usable" state. Really, what is so hard to understand about that statement?

I once reported some brand new cadpat gloves .... many many pairs of them ... being offered up for sale on EBay - brand new & still in the sealed bags ... NSN labels on the outside ....  it was a someone in the Sup system in that case.

And if every soldier in NATO did this this with his "cheap" gloves ... guess how many Chest Rigs that doesn't buy for the now?? Understand this ... every DIME that goes out the window like this .... accumulates to be worth of MANY dollars stolen from troops and our ability to support them and buy them what they need, pay raises etc.

If someone was taking a mere 10 bucks from your bank account every pay OWDU without you wanting them to or saying they could ... I'm sure sure you would NOT be sitting here telling us ... "is it really worth the effort"??? This is silly.

Short things short -- Kit is my responsibility, it's my job. I treat it likes in "mine" on behalf of the taxpayer ... that's what they expect me to do. If not, I'd just leave the doors to clothing stores unlocked every day and you could just come through "take whatever you need boys" ...

Money, in Canada, does not grow on trees. We are responsible for it, and we ARE obligated to control that kit, it's funding, and it's whereabouts by virtue of our trade.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Sep 2008)

Meanwhile, I went on to Ebay tonight, and searched for 'cadpat'. Over 135 items showed up, numerous TVs, knee pads, many from USA addresses. Original or not, gawd only bloody knows.

Balaclavas, hats, gloves, bandanas, t-shirts, pants and shirts, parkas, anoraks, everything but a CADPAT g-string!

Personally, any MP investigation into this will find themselves chasing their tails.

Happy days,

OWDU 

EDIT - that Toronto based surplus store still has CADPAT poncho liners for $70USD. He is a legitimate business. I don't think for a second he is peddling stolen property.


----------



## Strike (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> EDIT - that Toronto based surplus store still has CADPAT poncho liners for $70USD. He is a legitimate business. I don't think for a second he is peddling stolen property.



E-mail him and ask him where he got it.  His reply to me was "I know some people."  That's it.  Does that sound above board?


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> * everything but a CADPAT g-string!*
> 
> Personally, any MP investigation into this will find themselves chasing their tails.



On the bold bit -- I actually HAVE one of those ... just saying is all. 

On your last: Charging these people and ACTUALLY dealing with them in the PROPER DISCIPLINARY manner and PUNISHING them will actually serve as a deterrant to the current mindset amongst our personnel who figure "I've done my time - I've earned it".

It's PRECISELY because these thieves are getting away with it, not being brought to account, and then NOT being punished (IE: The CF "Disciplinary System has broken down") that there are those thieves who continue to believe they'll get away with bullshit like this (and have been getting away from it too).

It's time to put the DISCIPLINE back into them. Isn't that one of the most important building blocks of the CF and our capability to succeed?? Seems to me it always has been. When did that change?


----------



## Stoker (3 Sep 2008)

I never realized that this was such a problem. Instead of everyone complaining to the MP's, why are the MP's not monitoring e bay on a daily basis for this sort of illegal sale of controlled military items? It shouldn't have to be people on this site.


----------



## Teeps74 (3 Sep 2008)

With the computer age? Is that the change? It seems paperwork multiplied, and for some reason, writing a simple RDP referencing appropriate QR&O's has some how gotten difficult. Hell, in one case, I did all the work, submitted it (could not persue it, as I tagged the next guy in, then went off to play in the sandbox for a bit), and it collected dust. All that was left to do, was the actual summery trial. Would have been good for the soldier, and the unit... But... I do not know...

Frustrating. Nasty tasting self licking lollipop here. As senior NCMs and WO's we can only go so far with the hand holding. After that point, one makes a better arguement argueing with a brick wall.

My point being. IMHO every such case should be investigated properly and fully. If there are violations of the NDA or Criminal Code, then charges should be laid, and a proper trial should be conducted. This, in a weird way, is good for the soldier, and good for the CF. I have, in the past, seen the hatless dance, rescue careers... Today, people seem more afraid they might hurt one.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> With the computer age? Is that the change? It seems paperwork multiplied, and for some reason, writing a simple RDP referencing appropriate QR&O's has some how gotten difficult. Hell, in one case, I did all the work, submitted it (could not persue it, as I tagged the next guy in, then went off to play in the sandbox for a bit), and it collected dust. All that was left to do, was the actual summery trial. Would have been good for the soldier, and the unit... But... I do not know...
> 
> Frustrating. Nasty tasting self licking lollipop here. As senior NCMs and WO's we can only go so far with the hand holding. After that point, one makes a better arguement argueing with a brick wall.
> 
> My point being. IMHO every such case should be investigated properly and fully. If there are violations of the NDA or Criminal Code, then charges should be laid, and a proper trial should be conducted. This, in a weird way, is good for the soldier, and good for the CF. I have, in the past, seen the hatless dance, rescue careers... Today, people seem more afraid they might hurt one.



BINGO.

For those following the sing-a-long BOTC thread ...

The hatless dance would be the one accompanied by the  LeftRightLeftRightLeftRightLeft  "without the pauses" tempo that I spoke of.

This dance used to be commonplace in the CF; there was nary a Pte who hadn't at least "seen" someone perform it (if they hadn't performed such themselves). Now ... practicly no one knows what the hell it is and we have to teach it to them by "squads" should (shudder) it ever be required to be performed. (The squads bit was a tiny bit of exaggeration on my part, but I think you get the picture).

Perhaps many are just way too busy these days coming up with "changes" to make to things that are already working properly so that they get those "good" points on their annuals in that all-important assesment area??


----------



## Teeps74 (3 Sep 2008)

Once upon a time, it appeared to be an unwritten promotion requirement in my unit to have at least one 129 under your belt (dependant on circumstances) to get past the rank of MCpl.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Once upon a time, it appeared to be an unwritten promotion requirement in my unit to have at least one 129 under your belt (dependant on circumstances) to get past the rank of MCpl.



Yes.  And in earlier days, if you didn't do time in a DB, you never saw the appointment of RSM on your sleeve.


----------



## Wookilar (3 Sep 2008)

Thanks for the clarification on the CADPAT disposal issue (Vern and BinRat specifically). I remember the Edmonton scenario well (I was fixing Iltis'sssss for the same company but left before all the legal stuff started flying around ;D). A LOT of that was sold before the mistake was realized and I don't imagine it was ever recovered....

As to now, I will for sure keep my eyes more open...

Another question.....if the police investigation falls through (for whatever reasons) can administrative measures or charges (something along the lines of a 129) be brought by the CoC?

Wook

ps. On a personal note related to all this, if anyone in/around Kingston ever sees some long-haired, sandal wearing, granola crunching, tree hugging, friend of HEY, ZEUS! with a new patrol pack with the last three 031 (and my name of course) written in nice big black marker on the top (yes I know, against regs )...thump them for me and ask them where my laptop is as well....and they owe me $300 for my busted car window....


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I never realized that this was such a problem. Instead of everyone complaining to the MP's, why are the MP's not monitoring e bay on a daily basis for this sort of illegal sale of controlled military items? It shouldn't have to be people on this site.



What about addresses out of Canada?

Much of these items are USA based, some in Europe.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> What about addresses out of Canada?
> 
> Much of these items are USA based, some in Europe.



Yes indeed some are Europe based (and US based) ...  We do have Canadians serving in both those locations BTW.

Regarding that story I told earlier about brand new kit in the packaging?? ... That was EBay listed and was originating from a town quite close to a town in Europe that starts with a "G" and ends with a kirchen.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Unless the item is seen, and tags observed and the material checked for its authenticity, for all we know these could be after market designs.


Well, the CF owns the patent on CADPAT and is very tight about giving out permission for manufactures to make items in CADPAT.  Some specific small items have been approved to specific makers, but absolutely no blanket permissions have been given to anybody to produce whatever they want in CADPAT.  If something is a legitimate aftermarket CADPAT product, the manufacture would be able to present documentation showing the approval of the CF.  However, most after market goods being sold as CADPAT are either not really CADPAT (seconds or other digital pattern in which case the consumer is being told the product is something that it is not) or pirated CADPAT (as as we all know from the little thing at the start of movies, piracy is stealing).  

In the case of bigger things like load carriage vests/rigs, the item is either legitimately owned by the crown or it is not legitimate CADPAT.


----------



## danchapps (3 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I never realized that this was such a problem. Instead of everyone complaining to the MP's, why are the MP's not monitoring e bay on a daily basis for this sort of illegal sale of controlled military items? It shouldn't have to be people on this site.



I'm the little BinRat that Vern Mentioned in Edmonton. When I discussed the issue with the MP yesterday he seemed a little bummed out that he now had to do some research at home (he was still cool with doing it, part of the job), as ebay is a blocked site on the DWAN. He was slightly ticked that the firewall was that tight, but that's life. He stated that he was going to check it out when he got home. I was a little sad that the threads were pulled as I had used them as a reference as I failed to write down all of the available info (d'oh on my part). If I ever see more of this stuff on ebay you better believe I'm make the MP shack trip again without hesitation. It's a real shame that folks are trying to pull this crap, but that's the way the world runs.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Sep 2008)

WRT to the two CADPAT thermal blankets I have now, I'll get on here later and post the NSNs. I was assuming they were contract overruns or defective somehow in manufacture. They both were new in the bag. 

Perhaps they are knock offs using lables/tags to fool us, as it has fooled me. These liners have a zip in the centre so one can poke his head thru.

That surplus store in TO is a legit reputable business, and I can't see the owner peddling stolen property. The business is his livelyhood.

They sure are nice blankies though.

Happy days,

OWDU


----------



## danchapps (3 Sep 2008)

I'm not sure with your situation OWDU. If you want you can PM the NSN to me and I can look on MIMS tomorrow and see if they match up. It's been know that reputable dealers sometimes get stuff in that they aren't supposed to, and sometimes they don't know they shouldn't have it (usually they do know, if they are really good suppliers).


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> WRT to the two CADPAT thermal blankets I have now, I'll get on here later and post the NSNs. I was assuming they were contract overruns or defective somehow in manufacture. They both were new in the bag.
> 
> Perhaps they are knock offs using lables/tags to fool us, as it has fooled me. These liners have a zip in the centre so one can poke his head thru.
> 
> ...



Now, I didn't issue the contract to the manufacturer, but I'm pretty sure that as part fo the CTAT/ITAR contract protocol --- companies being awarded contracts to produce controlled items for the CF are subject to clause in the contract stating that "overruns/defects" etc are to be disposed of in such a state as to be completely unusable/unrepairable.

I could be wrong, and someone else with access to the actual contract specs would have to provide input here.

If that destruction is part of the contract though --- and they aren't abiding by it, there is always the possibility that the entire Company's security certificate for ITAR/CTAT can be revoked if they are in breach.

Not just this company ... any company that is contracted by us who has undergone the CTAT/ITAR security screening and approval process can have that revoked should they not comply with the legal demilitarization aspects required for those items they handle/supply/manufature on our behalf. IE ... a revocation of that CTAT/ITAR security certification will result in a loss of contracts for items that are subject to CTAT/ITAR.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Sep 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I'm not sure with your situation OWDU. If you want you can PM the NSN to me and I can look on MIMS tomorrow and see if they match up. It's been know that reputable dealers sometimes get stuff in that they aren't supposed to, and sometimes they don't know they shouldn't have it (usually they do know, if they are really good suppliers).



The dealer in question seems to haev an everending supply of these liners. I can't see them coming from a CF source.

I am betting they are coming from the manufacrtuer, and he is buying from them direct.

I will post the NSN and manufacturer once home tonight.

These could be bogus, as I have a US liner desert MARPAT (got in Iraq from Ebay of course) which has a tag on it with NSN, but its made in China, a good quality knock off though.


----------



## Boxkicker (3 Sep 2008)

Hello all I am glad Vern weighed in on this as well. I helped to start one of the original investigations years ago. One of the things I learned was that it was not illegal to sell CADPAT as long as it was not the material used by the military. So the fake stuff that is on the market is just the pattern. Now as for KIT the manufacturer can sell production over runs of certain items. Helmets and TAC vest are not some of those items. I have seen helmets in the box with the PWGSC number and that is something to watch for. Now on EBAY right now there are some things for sale from someone in Morinville,outside of Edmonton where I am posted and we can send it off to the MP's. I have also had some of my guys bring other sites like KIJIJI to my attention, which will come through the filters.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2008)

..........and I wonder how many of those 'sellers' lurk here and yank their stuff for awhile when they see the heat put on it. We've had lots of threads about people selling illegal stuff, but I don't remember too many stories about anyone being caught and convicted, because of our actions. I sometimes wonder if we let the cat out of the bag with our long threads and discussions.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Sep 2008)

Fair enough RG. Good call.

Cheers,
OWDU


----------



## garb811 (4 Sep 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I never realized that this was such a problem. Instead of everyone complaining to the MP's, why are the MP's not monitoring e bay on a daily basis for this sort of illegal sale of controlled military items? It shouldn't have to be people on this site.


Because we're not the EBay police?  Should we also be conducting spot checks of every military surplus store and pawn shop in Canada too?


----------



## CountDC (4 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, that is exactly it. He would have had to turn them in to clear (they're CTAT/ITAR items) --- that's NOT what's occured.
> 
> What occured is he either reported his lost or stolen (ie he lied as you said) and had them re-issued with a write-off occuring for the original items from his charge. Absolutely 100% fraudulent actions on Government paperwork and theft.
> 
> MOST likely though - he stole these items from one of his "buddies", perhaps even a coursemate; and SCREWED them out of their kit - making them submit MLRs when their items "somehow, mysteriously, got lost). Ni-iice. Absolutely 100% fraudulent actions on Government paperwork AND theft.



or he is/was a reservist who just walked away with the kit. Went NES and received a nice certificate in the mail saying Honourably Released from the CF.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> or he is/was a reservist who just walked away with the kit. Went NES and received a nice certificate in the mail saying Honourably Released from the CF.



Possibly.

But, I've gotten requests from AJAGs before for doc listings so that they could include them in the "registered" delivery of the legal mail those NES guys would be receiving. 

Just last year, I had an AJAG from "X" in Ontario contact me to let me know they'd made contact with one of the NES gents (kid had moved to this Province after going NES there) ... and that he'd be turning all that kit in here so that his butt didn't end up in jail. Even had to fax the AJAG copies of the paperwork showing the return to the system for the items NES boy had screwed off with.

I'm dealing with a sit now wrt a RegF gent ... who released ... and apparently decided it was ok to scribble his very own initials onto his PLCC card in the "Clothing Stores" space.  No stamp, his own initials, but he made it through the release process somehow --- and took all his kit with him because he never did clear out of clothing legally. Anyway, he hasn't been out for a year yet ... there's time. And, his time is coming.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Because we're not the EBay police?  Should we also be conducting spot checks of every military surplus store and pawn shop in Canada too?



Well.  After seven Regimental Colours and Guidons showed up in a Calgary Surplus Store, stolen out of DHH in Ottawa, that may be a good idea.     >


----------



## BinRat55 (4 Sep 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Because we're not the EBay police?  Should we also be conducting spot checks of every military surplus store and pawn shop in Canada too?



Of course not. But WE as members of the CF are responsible for reporting any wrongdoing when confronted by it. Like the RCR's say, "Never pass a fault." ... or was it, "Never pass the salt"?...

We have 90,000+ "cops" out there...


----------



## CountDC (4 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Possibly.
> 
> But, I've gotten requests from AJAGs before for doc listings so that they could include them in the "registered" delivery of the legal mail those NES guys would be receiving.



done lots of those in the past - most were ignored by the guys and nothing happened to them.  At one point the Sup O was rubber stamping write offs on all reserve NES mbrs kit as it was too much hassle to go after them.  I did hear that attempts were now being made through the JAG to recover the cost from mbrs by garnishment but this is usually a long process. I still think the old days of load the truck with several guys and visit all the NES mbrs to ask nicely   for the kit back was the best way to deal with it. Unfortunately the legal system does not agree with me. I also believe that anyone that has gone NES with outstanding kit should be given a dishonourable discharge instead of honourable.

I always hate it when people would give the excuse that they didn't have time to return the kit.  We had a reserve member sent to jail and the day he was sent he arranged with his mother to contact me and have us pick up his kit. If a man in jail can return his kit then in my books no one living has a good excuse.  

Guess I'll have to start cruising ebay, craigs list, Kijiji once in a while to report this stuff.


----------



## Stoker (4 Sep 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Because we're not the EBay police?  Should we also be conducting spot checks of every military surplus store and pawn shop in Canada too?



No your not, however if you know that on a regular basis there is stolen kit being put on e bay you would figure you would have a obligation to look into it.


----------



## danchapps (4 Sep 2008)

Having just returned from another visit to my friends at the MP shack (long week) I have passed more info on to the investigating Officer. There are now two persons involved in the report, and I was told there is now the possibility of an NIS investigation to do a sweep and get all of them at once. That's not a for sure,but I sure hope it is. Much thanks to those that passed information onto me, you know who you are, I won't do a call out, but thank you, info passed. I was absolutely shocked at the stuff one fellow had up for sale.

Cheers!


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ..........and I wonder how many of those 'sellers' lurk here and yank their stuff for awhile when they see the heat put on it. We've had lots of threads about people selling illegal stuff, but I don't remember too many stories about anyone being caught and convicted, because of our actions. I sometimes wonder if we let the cat out of the bag with our long threads and discussions.



There have been. JAG site shows them up - just as they do any other CMs.

I said it in another thread before, once I report it ... that I stop talking about it - there's an investigation going on, so, essentially, I shouldn't be talking about it anymore.

Same with the one below ... it's reported. Let the investigation occur and the chips fall where they may.

I can tell you this, that when they do nail someone ... they aren't coming back to me to inform me of what's occuring. Quite frankly, they (and I) don't think it's my business as I've already done my job by reporting it.

I can never prove it, but say I make a report (for example) about brand new kit still in the packaging on EBay being offered up from Greenwood and I report it -- then a couple (!! Yeah right ... a year later is closer to it) months later just happen to see Sup Tech Bloggins' name up on the JAG site for "theft" "property entrusted to them" etc etc --- I can connect a few of the dots. (NOTE: the previous scenario was just a scenario ... any resemblance of this scenario to any person, living or dead, is merely co-incidental.  ) <--- that works on TV for _Law & Order_!!  >


----------



## BinRat55 (8 Sep 2008)

Found this (if it's on here already my apologies...)

UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF COMBAT UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
CANFORGEN 120/02 DSSPM 0089 300845Z OCT 02
UNCLASSIFIED



REFS: A. CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLY MANUAL (CFSM) A-LM-007-014-AG-001 CHAPTER 3 SECTION 2 PARAGRAPH 2 
B. CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLY MANUAL (CFSM) A-LM-007-014-AG-001 CHAPTER 28 ANNEX D APPENDIX 13 
C. NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT (NDA) PART III CODE OF SERVICE DISCIPLINE SECTION 116 




THE PURPOSE OF THIS MSG IS TO REMIND MEMBERS OF REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ILLEGAL SALE OR DISPOSAL OF CROWN ASSETS. 


THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CANADIAN DISRUPTIVE PATTERN (CADPAT) HAS RESULTED IN A BLACK MARKET DEMAND FOR CAMOUFLAGE ITEMS WHEREBY CADPAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT HAVE BECOME QUOTE HOT TICKET UNQUOTE COLLECTABLES. 


REF A DEFINES COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT AS A QUOTE PERSONAL ALLOTMENT UNQUOTE ACCOUNTED FOR ON AN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT (IA) AND ARE RETAINED BY INDIVIDUALS AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO MEET THE ENTITLEMENT PARAMETERS OF THE APPLICABLE ENTITLEMENT GROUP CODE (EGC). COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT INCLUDING CADPAT ITEMS ARE CROWN ASSETS AND MUST RPT MUST BE SURRENDERED TO THE SUPPLY SYSTEM WHEN ENTITLEMENT NO LONGER EXISTS. SERVICEABLE CADPAT RPT CADPAT ITEMS WILL BE RETAINED AND RE-ISSUED WHILE ITEMS BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR SHALL BE DESTROYED LOCALLY IAW REF B. 


NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH UNAUTHORIZED SALE OR DISPOSAL OF COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT AS DETAILED AT REF C, PERSONNEL ARE ALSO REMINDED THAT THE INHERENT CAMOUFLAGE AND NEAR INFRA-RED (IR) CAPABILITY OF CADPAT MATERIAL OR OTHER ITEMS INCORPORATING STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY FALLS UNDER FORCE PROTECTION. SUCH CAPABILITY IN THE WRONG OR ENEMY HANDS JEOPARDIZES THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF CANADIAN TROOPS. CADPAT PATTERNS AND TECHNICAL DATA ARE PATENT AND COPYRIGHT PROTECTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (DND) HAS ACQUIRED THE TRADEMARK FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CADPAT ACRONYM. MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT CADPAT COMBAT CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT IS STILL IN DELIVERY AND EVERY SET COUNTS. 


THE DISPOSAL OF COMBAT UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT RESTS WITH DND AND NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

Please take note:




> UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF COMBAT UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
> CANFORGEN 120/02 DSSPM 0089 300845Z OCT 02
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...




If you should find any such equipment or uniforms being disposed of (SOLD), notify the nearest Military Police or RCMP Detachment right away.  Failing that, notify your nearest CF 'authority'.  Do not attempt to deal with the matter on your own.  Leave that to the proper authorities. 

More discusion at Sale of Canadian military uniforms on internet sparks investigation.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Found this (if it's on here already my apologies...)



It wasn't, but it is now.  I cut and paste and stickied it in the Military Administration Forum for others to find in the future.


----------



## BinRat55 (8 Sep 2008)

Excellent. Thank you very much George!


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2008)

Boxkicker said:
			
		

> One of the things I learned was that it was not illegal to sell CADPAT as long as it was not the material used by the military.


It might not be criminal.  It is a violation of copy write to sell something and call it CADPAT without permission.  It is also lying to the consumer if that something is not CADPAT, and it is piracy if that something is CADPAT.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Sep 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> Having just returned from another visit to my friends at the MP shack (long week) I have passed more info on to the investigating Officer patrolmen. There are now two persons involved in the report, and I was told there is now the possibility of an NIS investigation to do a sweep and get all of them at once. That's not a for sure,but I sure hope it is. Much thanks to those that passed information onto me, you know who you are, I won't do a call out, but thank you, info passed. I was absolutely shocked at the stuff one fellow had up for sale.
> 
> Cheers!



Excellent. Hopefully they nail everyone that can that is ripping off the CF and Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

(Unless the MP you were talking to is an MPO (Officer), they are patrolmen.  MPs are NCMs just like the rest of us  8))


----------



## danchapps (11 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Excellent. Hopefully they nail everyone that can that is ripping off the CF and Joe and Jane Taxpayer.
> 
> (Unless the MP you were talking to is an MPO (Officer), they are patrolmen.  MPs are NCMs just like the rest of us  8))



Thanks for the clarification, I guess it's a hold over from civie life, I still catch myself making silly minor errors like such. As Vern mentioned before, because this matter is being investigated I won't be talking anymore about specific cases, I'll let the MP's deal with it, not my problem anymore.

With that being said, I do agree, I can't stand seeing people rip off the crown, they pay for it out of their taxes too, and complain their taxes are high, a vicious circle I think.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Sep 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> With that being said, I do agree, I can't stand seeing people rip off the crown, they pay for it out of their taxes too, and complain their taxes are high, a vicious circle I think.



It shytes me to tears too, that there are 'thieves' selling current kit, but theft is theft, so I guess I am a bit of a hypocrit then.

I think we are all guilty of ripping off the Crown to some degree over our careers.

Example No.1: Duracel AA batteries come to mind (they're not cheap), even in the field on your own am/fm pers radio, if you procure batts for use other than in DND eqpt, its still fraud and/or theft. 

I wonder how many thousands of dollars are wasted on acquired batts of all shapes and sizes, not forgetting PP&S, even if its a small bottle of whiteout you 'borrowed', and 'forgot' to take it back   . I might indeed be touching the tip of the iceberg here ?

I am guilty.

OWDU


----------



## armyvern (12 Sep 2008)

Good poins Wes,

But hypocrisy really has NOTHING to do with it.  The wearing of uniforms by civilians (especially so be they -red-) is illegal, is in contravention of Geneva Conventions and puts the lives of our troops at risk.

Allowing a uniform to be stolen to possibly come into the hands of our enemy thereby putting our personnel at risk --- is certainly not akin to taking home the blue pen you inadvertantly put in your shirt pocket, but still the pen that you'll most likely use that night doing "work" anyways and the very same pen that'll make the trip back into work the next day).

Perhaps you're thinking of those days of decentralized budgets (ie Base Supply paid for everything instead of individual Units/Sections with their own budget) --- where in the late summer, demands for pencil crayons, markers, binders, paper etc would unexplicably rise (and perhpas the white-out too). Eerily enough that stuff would all then "disappear" from all Unit's PP&S lockers the week before school started.

Your right it happened .... that doesn't make it right. As a matter of fact, situations such as that a part of the reason that budgets did devolve. When your section's actually spending the money (and when it's gone --- it's gone) --- one has the distinct tendancy to be more careful with it and ensure it's used for it's intended purpose.

In this case, it's MY job to look after the taxpayers money (ie kit) by controlling, issuing as per entitlements, ensuring it's security, and reporting theft when I see it. Guess what? That's also a responsibility of each and every serving CF member.

Gone are  the days when a soldier had to say "bang, bang, bang" when out in the field while his buddies' kids all went to school kitted out with taxpayer funded PP&S. If you think THAT problem wasn't huge ... you need to think again. For every taxpayer dime that walks out the door ... that one less dime for equipment, clothing, boots, bullets, beans for OUR soldiers. Guess where my priority is? 

And, I'll say it again ... if most CF member had the attitude of your "winkie" regarding the botte of white-out and 60000 X 2.99 dollar bottles walked out tomorrow (that's most soldiers just saying "fuck it --- it's ONLY a 2.99 dollar bottle of white out, I'm taking it") that equals 180 000 bucks. Do you realize how many chest rigs that COULD have bought that our troops NEED right now? 

It's high time that people stopped trying to justify "theft" as insignificant or allowable. It's becoming quite disgusting to read about just how morally acceptable it seems to be these days in some quarters.


----------



## danchapps (12 Sep 2008)

Hey Vern,

This topic came up the other day when I was out and about. Somehow the conversation drifted to the subject and I did state that I had recently made 2 reports. The person I was talking to was sort of blown away that I did such a thing and asked why. I stated that I felt is was part of my job, that I'm not just a keen new guy, but someone that has high moral values as well. After I said that, said person said "Why don't you just let it be?" To which I said "It's hard enough for the troops to get the kit they need, why should some chump on the street get it before someone that needs it, plus selling it is ILLEGAL!" Then the subject changed after that. Sigh, if only everyone thought the same way as us on this issue.


----------



## Combat Trucker (13 Dec 2008)

Just found this on ebay....item no is 290281627080

$100 for a set of brand new AR CADPATS?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Dec 2008)

Combat Trucker said:
			
		

> Just found this on ebay....item no is 290281627080
> 
> $100 for a set of brand new AR CADPATS?



CT: Before you go on a CADPAT witch hunt, read the fine print on this item......


From the ebay item 290281627080 from info given by CT.

"I am extremely impressed with the quality of the uniform that you sell. I've served 27 years in the Canadian Army (PPCLI) and your version of the combat uniform is by far the best that I've seen. 

Furthermore, yours is the only after-market Canadian uniform   that I've seen with the correct double-layer reinforcement of the shoulders, elbows, seat & knees. Likewise, yours is the only version featuring the dust-cuffs on the trouser legs. 

All of the above to say that the uniform you sell is heads and shoulders above the competition, including genuine "real deal". I was very pleasantly impressed by the quality of the uniform that I received from you last month and just wanted to share my thoughts with you"

For the record, I know the man who made this comment to this ebay seller.

OWDU


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Dec 2008)

Anybody know this guy??

http://myworld.ebay.ca/harresons-mil/


----------



## MP 811 (13 Dec 2008)

I think it's an army surplus store in Victoria BC (not sure as I cant access the link at work).  If it's the same, this guy seems to get quite a few items to sell.  One of the few i've ever seen who had brand new jump smocks available at one time.


----------



## Combat Trucker (13 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> CT: Before you go on a CADPAT witch hunt, read the fine print on this item......
> 
> 
> From the ebay item 290281627080 from info given by CT.
> ...



I stand corrected............Didn't know any better.........


----------



## BinRat55 (15 Dec 2008)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> I think it's an army surplus store in Victoria BC (not sure as I cant access the link at work).  If it's the same, this guy seems to get quite a few items to sell.  One of the few i've ever seen who had brand new jump smocks available at one time.



Well, he even quotes the proper Nato Stock Code and size for a pair of CadPat gloves... the pic is pretty convincing that the kit is real.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> .... the only after-market Canadian uniform  that ...


 So, it is either not CADPAT or it is a pirate product.


----------



## BinRat55 (15 Dec 2008)

Meaning most likely a digital pattern material without the properties that make our CADPAT(C). See "Wheeler's Creative Bag Solutions" in Fredericton.


----------



## MP 811 (16 Dec 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Well, he even quotes the proper Nato Stock Code and size for a pair of CadPat gloves... the pic is pretty convincing that the kit is real.



Oh no doubt it is real kit.  Not sure where he gets all this stuff from and I believe the owner is ex reg force.  Im not on the island anymore or id go in and snoop around.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2008)

As has been said umpteen times before, If you think something illegal is being done, report it to the proper authorities and let THEM conduct their own investigation.  Muddied waters just make it that much more difficult to get to root of the problem.


----------



## BinRat55 (16 Dec 2008)

GEO - I would only assume that MP 811 _is _ the proper authorities... well, when he was in Esquimalt anyway - I think that is what he was meaning - he would  be performing an investigation on this yahoo...


----------



## BinRat55 (16 Dec 2008)

Hey...LOL...did anyone know that "Esquimalt" spell checks to "Asexuality"???? 

Interesting....


----------



## Haggis (16 Dec 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Hey...LOL...did anyone know that "Esquimalt" spell checks to "Asexuality"????
> 
> Interesting....



I think this comment constitutes a "thread tangent".


----------



## R. Jorgensen (16 Dec 2008)

Well, guess what I found on eBay today?








A) Definately NOT an after-market production
B) The description clearly states that it's an original; has been used but is in flawless condition; not a copy.

AR CADPAT, NATO Sizing 7044 (The jacket) and pants are NATO 7034.

I do believe whether this guy was or is a member of the Canadian Forces or not this would be illegal?


(I was actually looking for a Keffiyeh but came across that somehow).


----------



## hugh19 (16 Dec 2008)

I drive past that store every day to and from work. he has arid cadpat and I have a a fair number of cadpat tw feelce on hangars.


----------



## MP 811 (16 Dec 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> GEO - I would only assume that MP 811 _is _ the proper authorities... well, when he was in Esquimalt anyway - I think that is what he was meaning - he would  be performing an investigation on this yahoo...



That *Would* be correct, and im far from the island now.  I would suggest anyone in the Esquimalt area who is so inclind to stop by the guardhouse in Naden and have a chat with the local military constabulary!


----------



## catalyst (16 Dec 2008)

Too bad, I was just there (at the MP shack)


----------



## R. Jorgensen (18 Dec 2008)

R. Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Well, guess what I found on eBay today?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The man's name is <Mr. X> and he claims he received them through a Crown Auction and they came up along with scrap material: 

"these sets came out with many many more pieces as
scrap textiles.
Through the government auction."

Is it normal or even legal for the Government to sell WHOLE uniforms at a Government auction? This seems a little bit odd.


----------



## Albain (18 Dec 2008)

Indeed, but it's the government. I'm sure there are reasons but then again there always are.






Cheers, Mates


----------



## BinRat55 (18 Dec 2008)

R. Jorgensen said:
			
		

> The man's name is <Mr. X> and he claims he received them through a Crown Auction and they came up along with scrap material:
> 
> "these sets came out with many many more pieces as
> scrap textiles.
> ...



No, it's not normal. Cadpat uniforms cannot be sold as scrap textiles - period. They must be burned or shredded - this is the only means of legal disposal. Most places are shredding now, as burning could be harmful to the atmosphere. This all being said, this seems to be the excuse in most situations now (was in a scrap textiles triwall which I purchased through a government auction). We supply techs are not perfect by no means, but we have been doing this long enough now to know the difference between the SHREDDING pile and the SALE pile!!!


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2008)

Process is (with apologies to slashdot):

(1) Find "supplier" for material.

(2) Buy box of scraps.

(3) Claim real stuff was in box of scraps.

(4) Sell enough real stuff to fill every box of scrap you bought hundreds of times over.

(5) Profit!


----------



## 043 (18 Dec 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> No, it's not normal. Cadpat uniforms cannot be sold as scrap textiles - period. They must be burned or shredded - this is the only means of legal disposal. Most places are shredding now, as burning could be harmful to the atmosphere. This all being said, this seems to be the excuse in most situations now (was in a scrap textiles triwall which I purchased through a government auction). We supply techs are not perfect by no means, but we have been doing this long enough now to know the difference between the SHREDDING pile and the SALE pile!!!



While it sounds infallible, it's not. I remember in Pet years ago, R&D sent a bunch of Combats to the dump for disposal. Well, the owner of the dump then starting selling combats for $2 a pair.....we would buy them, and then take them up to QM to exchange them. A sweet deal for sure.


----------



## BinRat55 (18 Dec 2008)

2023 said:
			
		

> While it sounds infallible, it's not. I remember in Pet years ago, R&D sent a bunch of Combats to the dump for disposal. Well, the owner of the dump then starting selling combats for $2 a pair.....we would buy them, and then take them up to QM to exchange them. A sweet deal for sure.



True enough - and even THAT was an incorrect procedure. Our old OD cbts were sold as scrap textiles. Once taken out of the system, a big "D" was put somewhere on the item. Clothing Stores pers were to look for this infamous "D" prior to any exchange taking place. To take a bunch of uniforms to the dump - well, not in its whole state anyway. Shouldna been done. We can take our cadpat to the dump - after its been shredded. 

I can remember finding the "D" on lots of returns. You do what you can when you can - but your right - definitely NOT an infallible system.


----------



## geo (18 Dec 2008)

Currently in LFQA clothing stores will run N/S CADPAT thru a tru & blue "wood chipper". 
The School in St Jean bought one for their use some time ago but they found it too much bang for their requirements - so the chipper ended up in Montreal stores where all CADPAT is sent for demilitarization.


----------



## armyvern (18 Dec 2008)

Get the *SHREDDED* bit of this message dammit.

If cadpat items are NOT being SHREDDED ... they *can not * be sold via CADC by Base Supply's. They must be SHREDDED first.

Obviously, there's some Supply Supervisors in R&D sections in some bases that need some SERIOUS corrective actions to occur to THEM so that they start COMPLYING with the requirement to SHRED FIRST.

Then, if CADC won't sell the SHREDDED stuff for them, they can toss the SHREDDED items into a dumpster.

What part of SHRED do some Sup techs obviously NOT understand.

We can BITCH all we want about some surplus store selling it whole --- but it's OK for him to do IF the SUP TECH screwed up and didn't do THEIR jobs and SHRED it prior to selling via CADC as "scrap materials."

Thieves ... whole 'nother ball game. I hope they all rot.



> AIMS
> HMRA - Browser
> HMRA - Editor
> 
> ...


----------



## Blakey (18 Dec 2008)

If in fact these are real (sure looks like it to me, looks like pockets sewn onto sleeves ala tour specs) it really pisses me off.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will do to scam kit from the military and horde it in their basements and/or sell the kit, I mean WTF are they thinking?, I have no time for thieves, all they are doing is screwing their buddies over.

I've been a storeman on a couple of occasions and Ive heard all the stories, after looking at their _personaly *SIGNED 638*_ card the most usual response is _"I don't remember signing for that..."_ or _"I didn't get that..."_ *blah blah blah*... :crybaby: *COME ON PEOPLE, YOU SIGNED THE DAMN CARD!*  


Sorry, back on topic.
I sure hope that this is just an oversight by some R&D section, something that will be corrected.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (18 Dec 2008)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> If in fact these are real (sure looks like it to me, looks like pockets sewn onto sleeves ala tour specs) it really pisses me off.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me what people will do to scam kit from the military and horde it in their basements and/or sell the kit, I mean WTF are they thinking?, I have no time for thieves, all they are doing is screwing their buddies over.
> 
> ...



My uncle (Rob Erickson [I can't remember what his rank or regiment is - most likely RCR because I know for a fact he's an Infanteer, Cpl or MCpl]) had once said "It's sad to see fellow troop mates and such go 1, 2, even 3 years without their proper Combat Uniforms... walking around in the ol' OD's when you could probably outfit a whole troop with another pair of combats from all the official kit being sold on the internet." Now that was a few years ago so more than likely the situation has changed, however these "theives" like you said should be delt with; I don't care if there isn't enough MP's to go around, get the RCMP and local police services to enforce and punish these people. It should be illegal for civilians to posses and sell ANY property of the Canadian Forces that has not been deemed 'surplus'.

(I haven't eaten yet today so there may be some error with my post, I'll be back soon to patch this up if that's the case).


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Dec 2008)

R. Jorgensen said:
			
		

> The man's name is (name now deleted) and he claims he received them through a Crown Auction and they came up along with scrap material:
> 
> "these sets came out with many many more pieces as
> scrap textiles.
> ...



Come on! Naming this guy on here - sheesh, we cannot assume he is guilty of any crime, all because of potential government incompetance WRT improper disposal. He is not a thief, and he should not be treated with such contempt. I think its very harsh to publicallly name in on here, and this (his name) should be immedialty edited by the Mods or the poster. Its just not the right thing to do, and I am right winged!

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## R. Jorgensen (18 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Come on! Naming this guy on here - sheesh, we cannot assume he is guilty of any crime, all because of potential government incompetance WRT improper disposal. He is not a thief, and he should not be treated with such contempt. I think its very harsh to publicallly name in on here, and this (his name) should be immedialty edited by the Mods or the poster. Its just not the right thing to do, and I am right winged!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OWDU



True, however Mr. X gave me his name so it's his own fault. I shall change ASAP.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Dec 2008)

Don't go passing the blame, you posted it.

Its up to you whatever decision you make, and we are all responsible for our own actions.

EDIT: IMHO you did the right thing by deleting his name


----------



## hugh19 (18 Dec 2008)

Mind you Mr X's name is still in the quotes.


----------



## CountDC (18 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Don't go passing the blame, you posted it.
> 
> Its up to you whatever decision you make, and we are all responsible for our own actions.
> 
> EDIT: IMHO you did the right thing by deleting his name



so now you and Binrat have to remove it from your posts


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Dec 2008)

sledge said:
			
		

> Mind you Mr X's name is still in the quotes.



Thanks CDC,

Since rectified, thanks for pointing that out. Amended once at work.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

Thanks I've enjoyed the laugh. MPs have no authority over civilians unless said civilians are employed by DND or on DND property. RCMP assistance is required, a warrent signed by a Judge is required, civilians are not bound by QR&Os with the exceptions stated above, Crown assets disposal is not a military entity it is a civilian gov't agency DND regs do not apply to them, if IRR tech was controlled Camelbak products would be seized by Canada Customs, crown assets are my tax dollars,  all the stuff you are complaining about is available in every surplus store across the country legally disposed of by Crown Assets Disposal (I am very familiar with CF disposal markings and they are easily faked), Civilian police are only going as far as to ascertain if it is asset disposal or DND property. This is just a short list that would make my 2 lawyers, the criminal one for the win he would get, and the other for the malicious prosecution law suit . The criminal code and QR&Os are 2 different things, there are no QR&Os in my world anymore, I am sorry if you guys feel slighted or offended by this but if it were illeagal every surplus store owner would be in court and there would be a  Federal Government in to DND with several high ranking brass getting their heads handed to them. What you are seeing is media spin all those officers cited were from public affairs tasked with keeping public confidence in The Canadian Forces. Every time one of you gets a story about this in to the press ie. CBC story public affairs has to spin it. When you complain to the authorities nothing is going to happen because higher ups in DND and Gov't are already aware of it. It raises revenue to help pay for the new tanks, helicopters, and such, as well as your training & transport costs. If some of that cost can be defrayed by selling off outdated, defective, or worn kit that is a good thing. IRR tech is freely available on the commercial market, comm gear minus the encoding tech is available and legal. The only reason body armour is controled is that Law Enforcement do not want criminals having better stuff than they have but all you really need is military, LE, or security ID to purchase it privately and it is still legal to own when you are no long associated with said organizations. "This is much ado about nothing."


----------



## armyvern (3 Apr 2009)

Hi Buckaroo,

It's the Defence Production Act - it is applicable to civilians - give it a read.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/d-1/

That's an Act of Parliament.

Not, the QR&Os - your mistake, but thanks for the laugh from yourself. 

Acts of Parliament take precedence over the QR&Os.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Hey Recon, what does this mean?

Its from your profile.

163d Inf Bn MNG USA (consultant) 

Thanking you in advance,

OWDU


----------



## geo (3 Apr 2009)

I believe that's 163rd Inf Bn - Montana National Guard


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Not to hijack, but.....

I had never heard of anyone referring to term NG as Army National Guard, usually referred to as ARNG by anyone in the field.

In 1980-83 I worked often with the 1/163 Arm'd Cav out of Plentywood and Culbertson Montana in the days of their petrol powered (not diesel) 113's, after they had lost their 109's, and obviously since they went Infantry as of late.

Culbertson still had M60 tanks, and a new armoury with an indoor range for sub cal use.

Sask D's out of the 'Jaw also worked with them in the 80's.

Whats this civilian consultant thing? I have never heard of that either.

I did not know that a Montana ARNG Unit had a budget for a foreign 'consultant'. Yes, and a consultant to what exactly?

Sum up Sarge, the INet is full of interesting and mysterous people, in which many should be taken with a grain of salt in what they proclaim.

My quid on this.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

Overwatch thats basically the unit' some friends in that unit got me the job, it was a training thing weapons repair, NBC, etc. I was renumerated out of unit funds. as for the listing, profile would not take it until I omitted some letters to shorten it up while still tryng to make it understood. That unit is now Mech Infantry.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

One can google 163d mng and you US postal stamps, google 163d arng and you get the right SM.

Please examine my profile, there is plenty of room in the Unit, MOC and military experience.

I take that is with the correct green card to be actually paid? 

Unit funds? Weapons repair by a foreigner without a security clearance in a post 9-11 world? NBC what?

Mate I don't know who you are, but something is not right here.

Anything else on this, you take this to PMs and you can give me your telephone number if you like, and it will be my shout - thats our slang for it's my dime.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> One can google 163d mng and you US postal stamps, google 163d arng and you get the right SM.
> 
> I take that is with the correct green card to be actually paid?
> 
> ...



OD, I too am smelling something here and it's not pleasant!


----------



## armyvern (3 Apr 2009)

I too am a bit shocked that a Canadian "International Military Consultant" [on weapons at that!!] is not familiar with the Defence Production Act.

That would be an act he should be most familiar with --- given his details of background/work that's he's stated here.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Anything else on this, you take this to PMs and you can give me your telephone number if you like, and it will be my shout - thats our slang for it's my dime.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OWDU



ALCON,

I am still waiting on a PM thats never going to happen.

Sorry, but I smell poo.

I rest my case.


OWDU

EDIT: Its 0124 hrs here on a Sat am, and I am off to bed.


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

pre 9-11, my grandfather was born in S. Dakota, my father in N. Dakota and I have spent 90% of my civilian career working in the US, my legal status in the US is my business. I taught NBCW, weapons repair etc. I also worked at CFB Suffield on DRES project Swift Sure which in involved the destruction on stored WW 1 chemical Weapons, which was brought to the attention of my friends commander by them. As ex-Canadian Military with actual chemical weapons experience I was invited by said unit as an expert "civilian consultant" (my term) for training purposes. And at that time I had a higher military security clearance than you do now I bet. I have stood face to face with Soviet Tanks (ask George Wallace about the stand to in 1980 when we sat on the border for 24 hours with live ammo in the tanks) during fall ex in West Germany, I do not know George personally but we were both there at the same time, my troop commander was Lt. Ferron. I am or was qualified on FN C1A1, FN C2, C3A1, C5, C6, Browning 50, C1A1 SMG, Browning HP, M72 LAW, Carl G, and trained as a gunner in the Leopard 1. I held 404s for Leopard 1, Lynx, Cougar, M113, and a wide assortment of wheel vehicles, qualified & operated C42, PRC 77, & RT 524 radio sets including Nestor system. As a Crew Commander I have attended & participated in 4 annual Brigade Int briefings 1 CBG Calgary. I have done my time. And lack of kit was just as severe back then I remember the RCR trialed the DPM Mk II & we wore thread bare combats because they had canceled production of the ODs gearing up to produce the DPMs until politicians cancelled the program just prior to acceptance, 1981 I believe.  Is there anything else you would like to know or is this good?


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Sorry, but talk is cheap and only time will tell.

I am professional enough not to discuss my current valid security clearance.  

Mate many of us have taught CBR, are current SMEs and instructed within our trades, or/and leadership/recruit schools, thats nothing special, just another tick in the box.

Being qualified on a sniper rifle and 'just having a shot' are two different kettles of fish.

That Soviet tank story is quite a yarn, and with all my TI as a CF Mbr (1976-1995), the first time I heard of this is now. I really can't see a bunch of CF tanks stopping the Soviet onslaught into western Europe.

As for me, like many of us, I've been on recent active service (not the same definition as the US - it means warlike service), and had a few close calls. It was not a middle eastern holiday or a Reforger exercise. You're not taking to some pencil necked safety geek.

I am not aware that any MOC 011s were snipers unless they were retreads from a 031 past.

It was a C1 SMG, no amendments to that weapon.

You ar talking to a former '031' and an armourer.

WRT the DPM of c.1981, I had a set, genuine at that. They were contracted for Tanzania in Africa. I got pics of their troops wearing them.

I had never seen a genuine/real shortage of see-thru OG107s.

In that era, most soldiers were current on their pers wpns and some crew served, and DFSWs (Direct Fire Support Weapons, such as the 84 and 66)- it was within their trade to do so, nothing special about that either. 

I would hope as a 011 you were current on these, as this would be a mininum standard for the RCAC. Crew served weapons are the bread and butter of any armoured corps. 

Many of us too have been coursed up on various tracked and wheeled AFVs, and have comms courses.

Like I say, talk is cheap, and time will tell, but I am not the only one who is suspicious.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

I would have got back sooner I was reading Defence Production Act which is for the most part a procurement act for production, maintaining, & purchasing of defense equipment  from industry which lists exemption's to controlled goods list for above said procurement only 2 items are listed prohibited weapons (as defined by the criminal code) item 2001 and ammunition above 12.7 mm item 2003 all other item numbers in the schedule are unassigned and appear to be at the discretion of the Minister of Defence as per previous sections of the act. It also tends to support this post





			
				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 .....


Vern how many people have been actually charged for possession of CADPAT textiles? Try reading and understanding the whole instead of picking small pieces as justification for your pet peeve. As for tactical security see


			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Definitely something to be aware of the possibility of occurring, but there's nothing preventing insurgent/Taliban/Al Qaeda forces from acquiring US, British, or any multitude of uniforms of allied nations (whose uniforms are readily available through surplus stores, ebay, internet, etc.) serving beside the Canadians in Afghanistan and carrying out an attack as described.
> It's been done by insurgent forces in Iraq during fighting in Fallujah and Najaf and achieved limited/little success (The insurgents didn't use the uniforms for suicide bombings, but rather in the pitched street battles to try and infiltrate into American lines).
> 
> I'd be more worried about an attack of multiple VBIEDs used to breach and attack a facility, ie. Palestine Hotel in Baghdad than a single footborne suicide bomber disguising himself as a Canadian in cadpat clothing and equipment.  Also, a lone soldier attempting to enter a compound or infiltrate a body of troops would draw attention unto himself, as it's very unlikely that a single troop would be 'outside the wire'.  Then when he's challenged/questioned by the gate guard, unless he spoke perfect english or french (depending on the working language of the unit deployed) it'd become very quickly apparent, something was fishy and the situation would be handled accordingly.  Proper force protection requires some sort of id check/challenge procedure for persons entering friendly lines, no matter how they're dressed or what sort of vehicle they're in.
> ...


Semper Fi Matt
The fact is only DND regulations call this a controlled item not the DPA or other part of Canadian Law, The DPA covers industry and DND uses it to beat them over the heads to stop them from manufacturing commercially which would reduce overall unit costs. Which would get you more kit for the same money or lower tax dollars committed. Industry is threatened with loss of production licences & exemptions if they don't comply ie. Parklands a past major supplier to CAF. And yes I am presently offended. I have observed while reading thousands of post the last few weeks that whenever someone says something some of you regular users don't like you verbally attack them and question their credibility a user that seemed to be a military lawyer said you were wrong you ignore that, you ignore cited evidence and just prattle on like nothing has occurred at all. If possession was illegal Mr. Collicutt would have been immediately charged and his CADPAT stocks seized as evidence, they would not have requested he return it or tried to trade him future goods as per the Edmonton Journal article cited. As for PMing Overwatch I have no need I will publicly state my resume' minus some areas that involve the interests of other individuals I have been associated with or company's I have non disclosure agreements with. In conclusion try to understand the examples you cite look at thing logically and engage in intelligent debate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2009)

This thread *WILL NOT* get turned into some sort of personal pissing contest. If someone has a _substantiated_ allegation, not a gut feeling, they can take it to the Staff for disclosure and action. Finally, and once again, credentials go a long way to establish credibility, but they are not a requirement of this forum in order to participate.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

I said faced, not engaged don't ask the reason I do not know them after 24 hrs live ammo was returned & we were reissued blanks & returned to the ex. I said qualified on the weapon not a trained sniper. You questioned my credibility and I answered you as now I am answering your questions. I do not question your stated experience or extra national service I take it with a degree of faith and except it. If you reread some of your own posts on this thread they support some of my points. Military Police can not arrest civilians and the RCMP are not interested (this CADPAT debate has been going on for 10 years since Crown Assets released the trials stuff to surplus) they have already investigated more then once & to my knowledge not seized 1 piece of CADPAT from a surplus store or individual. I deal with surplus stores in both Canada & the US all the time I would know if any of them I know had been charged. You seen it all done it all super soldiers make me shake my head The Tanzanian DPM was colored like the jump jackets & went to Tanzania the Trials stuff was NATO DPM colored same as the Brits & Dutch were using. My disceased cousin was RCR at that time and my Aunt has a set of his DPM at her home complete with all insignia on it. Un-adopted kit is not carried on any TO&Es have to do a lot of research to find it or believe people that were there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> I said faced, not engaged don't ask the reason I do not know them after 24 hrs live ammo was returned & we were reissued blanks & returned to the ex. I said qualified on the weapon not a trained sniper. You questioned my credibility and I answered you as now I am answering your questions. I do not question your stated experience or extra national service I take it with a degree of faith and except it. If you reread some of your own posts on this thread they support some of my points. Military Police can not arrest civilians and the RCMP are not interested (this CADPAT debate has been going on for 10 years since Crown Assets released the trials stuff to surplus) they have already investigated more then once & to my knowledge not seized 1 piece of CADPAT from a surplus store or individual. I deal with surplus stores in both Canada & the US all the time I would know if any of them I know had been charged. You seen it all done it all super soldiers make me shake my head  The Tanzanian DPM was colored like the jump jackets & went to Tanzania the Trials stuff was NATO DPM colored same as the Brits & Dutch were using. My disceased cousin was RCR at that time and my Aunt has a set of his DPM at her home complete with all insignia on it. Un-adopted kit is not carried on any TO&Es have to do a lot of research to find it or believe people that were there.



Don't listen very well do you?

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

sorry I did not see your 1st message until after I hit the post button.


----------



## Loachman (3 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> WRT the DPM of c.1981, I had a set, genuine at that. They were contracted for Tanzania in Africa. I got pics of their troops wearing them.



User trials were done on combat clothing made from the tropical DPM fabric in Gagetown in the summer of 1979 by an Infantry Officer Phase III course. The tropical fabric was brighter than the temperate version, and stood out against the forest background quite noticeably.

It also had flat breast pockets, as the webbing that had failed its trial the year before (and resurfaced in modified form as the 82 Pattern) had magazine pouches. This was, of course, somewhat of an inconvenience for the wearers.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> User trials were done on combat clothing made from the tropical DPM fabric in Gagetown in the summer of 1979 by an Infantry Officer Phase III course. The tropical fabric was brighter than the temperate version, and stood out against the forest background quite noticeably.
> 
> It also had flat breast pockets, as the webbing that had failed its trial the year before (and resurfaced in modified form as the 82 Pattern) had magazine pouches. This was, of course, somewhat of an inconvenience for the wearers.



I was aware of new DPM trials in the late 1970s.

The uniform I had was genuine, but differs from the one you have described. It was identically patterned off the OG107 Cdn standard we've all worn, but with the absence of re-inforced rifle mag pouches in the lower pockets on the jacket (AKA shirt), and no velcro enclosure on the inner breast/chest pocket also on the jacket. Similar in DPM on the Cdn 'smock parchutist'. Mine went to a collector in Ontario before my immigration to 'down' here.

Identification and size tags were entirely absent on this uniform, but a small white tag on the inside of the collar was present, sewn in, but blank. This tag was about 1.5 inches square. There was no evidence of a larger tag being removed, and were never sewn in.

Mark C has a set of this stuff too in his rather extensive military uniform collection, and would be completely 'in the know' on its history of this pattern.

Years later in a book I had purchased, I had noticed Tanzanian regular troops, parading in strength, marching with AKM rifles, wearing these 'Cdn' uniforms. 

I must find that book (its here somewhere), and scan some pics.


Regards,

OWDU

EDIT: See pics below. These are recent, and it look like the Tanzanians are still using the '107' pat DPMs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> User trials were done on combat clothing made from the tropical DPM fabric in Gagetown in the summer of 1979 by an Infantry Officer Phase III course. The tropical fabric was brighter than the temperate version, and stood out against the forest background quite noticeably.
> 
> It also had flat breast pockets, as the webbing that had failed its trial the year before (and resurfaced in modified form as the 82 Pattern) had magazine pouches. This was, of course, somewhat of an inconvenience for the wearers.



And, as I recall, we Phase IIs thought they were really cool until the sleeves started to fall off. Or, did they get pulled off during the combat crud games?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 Apr 2009)

Although the Tanzanians continue to use that same pattern of DPM uniform, there are some marked differences between what they initially used in the 1970s vs. what they're currently using now.

We had a Tanzanian officer stop by the shop in Fredericton as part of the international staff officer's course that is run out of Aldershot, so I had a quick once-over of his uniform:  The pocket layouts is still very similar to the CF combats, however the buttons are no longer the 'slotted' style, and the fabric is more of a twill, rather than the 'Combat Cloth' which the initial batch were done in.


----------



## Loachman (4 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> The uniform I had was genuine, but differs from the one you have described. It was identically patterned off the OG107 Cdn standard we've all worn, but with the absence of re-inforced rifle mag pouches in the lower pockets on the jacket (AKA shirt), and no velcro enclosure on the inner breast/chest pocket also on the jacket. Similar in DPM on the Cdn 'smock parchutist'.



I have a set of that stuff, too - exactly as described. They flooded surplus shops in the mid-seventies. The same manufacturer put out an OG version as well. I do not believe that any were ever intended to be issued, and that thye were made for commercial sale only. I cannot recall the name of the manufacturer.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Apr 2009)

Hence the lack of mag pouches in the pockets and no velcro. 

This pattern may be they type of Tanzania originally got??

I noticed in the pics, the breast pocket buttons appear different.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Signalman150 (4 Apr 2009)

OWDU,
That photograph in a book you mentioned, of Tanzanian troops parading in DPM combats.  Was it perhaps a pic in the National Geographic?  I remember being extremely surprised to see it at the time, because it was obviously Cdn pattern.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Apr 2009)

It is in a hard covered book which I have somewhere, and its a B&W pic. A good view of the buttons etc, nice and close and sharp. Definatly the DPM 107 type.

The book was printed around 1981 if I remember right.

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## Loachman (5 Apr 2009)

I think that the Tanzanians got the DPM version of our uniform before the current slotted small buttons became standard for us - the original Canadian combat uniform had regular four-hole sewn on buttons except for the larger slotted type on the pockets.

The DPM commercial combat clothing knock-offs first came out with a commercial sewn-on small button as well. It was not the original official style, though, but flatter with a raised rounded edge. I bought one of those shirts with the intent of replacing the buttons, but bought second one when the revised version appeared.

I'm pretty sure that the Tanzanians were wearing the DPM version of our combat clothing long before these commercial ones became available.

The Tanzanian uniforms also appeared in an old mercenary movie. It may have been Dark of the Sun, but I am not certain.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I think that the Tanzanians got the DPM version of our uniform before the current slotted small buttons became standard for us - the original Canadian combat uniform had regular four-hole sewn on buttons except for the larger slotted type on the pockets.
> 
> The DPM commercial combat clothing knock-offs first came out with a commercial sewn-on small button as well.



I wish I could find that pic!!

On the version I had, the small standard buttons on the pockets of the jacket and trousers (even on the belt loops) were the modern slotted type, and were identical to what was on the OG107s a la early 80's. 

Perhaps there was a mixture of aftermarket and ealier, 'TZ' DPM 107 patt at one time?

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Loachman (6 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> On the version I had, the small standard buttons on the pockets of the jacket and trousers (even on the belt loops) were the modern slotted type, and were identical to what was on the OG107s a la early 80's.



That was the second batch to hit the shops. The OG version followed the same sequence - civvy pattern sewn-on buttons first, and slotted buttons on the later ones. I have one of each type of DPM shirts, and one pair of the later version of the trousers.



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Perhaps there was a mixture of aftermarket and ealier, 'TZ' DPM 107 patt at one time?



I don't believe that any of this was ever intended for the Tanzanians, given the amount of it available, and that it was produced in OG107 and DPM simultaneously, with two types of buttons, and simplified (no mag pockets in the lower cargo pockets, nylon lining and pen pocket in the upper pockets, inner shirt pocket, or military style label). I have never seen the original Tanzanian stuff, but I would guess that it was made from British fabric.


----------



## XMP (29 Jun 2009)

Sorry if I offend reactivating an old thread but I believe this may be the image that Overwatch Down Under was referring to:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Tanzanian army soldiers on parade wearing the Canadian made Mark II combat uniform in late 1974 or early 1975. Officers wear Sam Browne belts with swords, the Other Ranks are armed with SKS 45 type rifles.

A moderatly large quantity of hats, shirt/coats and trousers were produced by Peerless Garments Limited in the mid 1970s for the Tanzanian Army. These were identical in construction and design to the Canadian OG107 Mark II Combat uniform, but had a modified British DPM camouflage pattern printed on the material.
Details are lacking, but it appears that some of these uniforms were also issued for limited trials by the Canadian army.




Detail of added camouflage material on a 1976 production combat shirt. It is possible this was part of a stitching and wearability trial.




Production label on the above shirt.




Sample section of the Tanzanian pattern camouflage pattern printed on standard Canadian nylon/cotton Combat uniform material.




Example of the Tanzanian Pattern Combat shirt from a private collection (Ed S.)




I believe this is the 1980s trial version in a brighter green that was trialled in Gagetown. According to research by ED S. the set consisted of a cap, shirt/coat and trousers. This pattern was evidently also trialed by 4 Brigade in Germany. At the conclusion of the trials most of the material was destroyed. 
<p>


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jun 2009)

Thanks for the pics. Interesting.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## amastermason (29 Jan 2010)

I just spent a full couple of hours reading this article, and I agree.  Unfortunately, someone "turned" me in for selling CADPAT recce smock that I bought legally from the kit shop.  Because it was authentic material, I was flagged.  I also sold a GPS (Garmin) that I won in KAF on the Timmies contest, and was flagged for that as well.  I agree that it was the right thing to do, speak up that is, but I got screwed over because someone had a personal vendetta against me, and I know who it is.  What I did was not illegal, but the MP's involved should have used their heads for something other than a hat rack.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jan 2010)

A kit shop had a CADPAT Recce smock made out of the "authentic" material?  The stuff with the IR properties?  Maybe they should have been reported.  IIRC, no one is allowed to use the "authentic" material and very few (CP Gear comes to mind) have been granted use of the pattern itself.


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Jan 2010)

Moe, I'm not sure on this but I think amastermason is talking about the smock made by Drop Zone. I think they were one of the companies allowed to use the real deal.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jan 2010)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Moe, I'm not sure on this but I think amastermason is talking about the smock made by Drop Zone. I think they were one of the companies allowed to use the real deal.


Good enough.  Thanks for the info.

Edit to add:  Re: MCG's reply.  That's exactly what I thought.  Whew, for a second there, I thought I was wrong!!       Perhaps Drop Zone was one of the companies authorized to use the pattern as opposed to the real material.


----------



## McG (29 Jan 2010)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Moe, I'm not sure on this but I think amastermason is talking about the smock made by Drop Zone. I think they were one of the companies allowed to use the real deal.


No company has been granted this permission for the making of clothing except those uniforms sold to DND.
If a company is doing this, the product is pirated and the company risks loosing the permision for whatever products it was authorized.


----------



## Crapgame (30 Jan 2010)

XMP said:
			
		

> Sorry if I offend reactivating an old thread but I believe this may be the image that Overwatch Down Under was referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excuse the Thread-Jack:  Hero Army Surplus has a few of the CAR-badged DPM Jumpsmocks in Size 3,  $70, I think


----------



## Loachman (30 Jan 2010)

The threadjack is excused, presuming that you are not the owner of Hero Army Surplus, wherever they are, but please do not include a bunch of photographs that have already been posted in your response next time.

Thank-you.


----------



## amastermason (1 Feb 2010)

It actually was authentic material, I don't know the in's and out's of it, but it was real.  As for the legallity of it all, I'll leave that up to people who get paid to deal with it.  Some people worry too much about what we're wearing, not the  mission involved.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Feb 2010)

I turned in a supply tech who was selling cadpat uniforms and tacvests that he was helping himself to at work and turning around to sell.
Sucks that someone tried to skunk you (did you deal with that situation?) but sometimes people get reported for legit reasons too.


----------



## Delta26 (3 Jul 2010)

ok, this is disgusting..  just as a test i dropped "CADPAT" into the ebay search, and wow.. a metric but load of sellers.. most of the stuff is from either Quebec, or BC..

one company out of bc is selling one of the cadpat small pack, with all the bits.. 

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canadian-Forces-CADPAT-Small-Pack-Complete-/170508428952?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item27b3182698

now, is that a legit piece of kit(IE out of stores) or is it a piece that never passed qa?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jul 2010)

Looks legit to me.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jul 2010)

Lone Wolf AT said:
			
		

> Looks legit to me.



'Tis so; fresh out of the clear plastic bag the assembly was issued in --- CTS tag and all.



So is the arid cadpat showing up as being in "the store" too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2010)

Looks to be displaying it on his grey issue fire blanket also.


----------



## Jager (4 Jul 2010)

> We ship worldwide and accept Paypal to confirmed addresses. Canadian residents add 5% GST, BC residents add 7% PST. Please wait for invoice before paying with paypal.



Right..... I'm sure the government gets the money that he 'collects' for taxes.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2010)

He is openly in business. He has to submit his records for tax purposes. The government is rather serious about such things. That he is selling restricted items openly is another matter. Either he has legitimate sources (slim chance, but not impossible) or nobody officially cares to go after him.


----------



## Kokanee (7 Jul 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ...or nobody officially cares to go after him.



I gave the MP's at my base a pile of PM's and posts from a fellow on a webforum whom was quite clearly selling restricted items he had pilfered from supply @ CFB Petawawa (he confirmed as such in his pm's to me) back in 2004. Initially my evidence was greeted with enthusiasm and thanks, but then a week later I went back for a scheduled followup appt and a MP Sgt told me "here's your stuff back, we're not going to do anything with it as the problem is just too big."

At that point I stopped caring.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2010)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> I gave the MP's at my base a pile of PM's and posts from a fellow on a webforum whom was quite clearly selling restricted items he had pilfered from supply @ CFB Petawawa (he confirmed as such in his pm's to me) back in 2004. Initially my evidence was greeted with enthusiasm and thanks, but then a week later I went back for a scheduled followup appt and a MP Sgt told me "here's your stuff back, we're not going to do anything with it as the problem is just too big."
> 
> At that point I stopped caring.



Really pisses you off when that happens doesn't it!  Seen it happen in Pet on other occasions, in other circumstances, in other sections.


----------



## Kokanee (8 Jul 2010)

Indeed George; I have zero patience for military members, let alone civilian workers who steal clothing/equipment and sell it to make a buck as I (like a good many people here) have had to go without on occasion during OPs.


----------



## PegcityNavy (8 Jul 2010)

I would be concerned that the uniforms could be purchased by hostile groups and sent to Afghanistan and used in ambushes. This is not acceptable at all. 
What is the justification for having a real uniform, you do not need a real uniform for paint balling.


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Jul 2010)

Pegcity said:
			
		

> I would be concerned that the uniforms could be purchased by hostile groups and sent to Afghanistan and used in ambushes. This is not acceptable at all.
> What is the justification for having a real uniform, you do not need a real uniform for paint balling.



I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.


----------



## Occam (8 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
> The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
> contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.



I can't see a manufacturer risking the loss of future contracts, as well as sanctions under ITAR, by selling off controlled items in excess of a contracted amount.


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Jul 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> I can't see a manufacturer risking the loss of future contracts, as well as sanctions under ITAR, by selling off controlled items in excess of a contracted amount.



I can, and the possibility exists.
I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.
One cannot just assume that items of kit whether controlled or not are stolen and then sold off.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.



You can't ?

Have you looked at the CF court martial calendar over the last few years ?


For example :

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/roche.pdf



> Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing, when entrusted by reason of her employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.



Example :

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/belanger.pdf



> Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing when entrusted, by reason of his employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.



http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/gray.pdf



> Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: S. 114 NDA, stealing



These are for 2010, so far, alone.


----------



## Occam (9 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.



I'll see your "possibility" and raise you one "likelihood".


----------



## danchapps (9 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
> The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
> contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.



If we are talking about the CADPat uniforms and such, the manufacturer is not permitted to sell any legitimate pieces (ex: anything that has been treated for the IR resistance) The legit items that are for sale on ebay would be stolen items. Unfortunately the level of stolen or "lost" kit that appears on ebay is excessively high. Reports are constantly sent to the MP's to deal with, however they don't have the manpower to recover all of the material.


----------



## Brasidas (10 Jul 2010)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> If we are talking about the CADPat uniforms and such, the manufacturer is not permitted to sell any legitimate pieces (ex: anything that has been treated for the IR resistance) The legit items that are for sale on ebay would be stolen items. Unfortunately the level of stolen or "lost" kit that appears on ebay is excessively high. Reports are constantly sent to the MP's to deal with, however they don't have the manpower to recover all of the material.



Fly by night e-bay merchants are one thing. Established, stable surplus stores sell this crap openly. Dropped by Supply Sergeant in Edmonton in the last couple weeks, could've picked up a tac vest, cadpat combats, bushcap and whatnot. I know I can do the same in Kingston. What kind of effort would it really take for MPs to drop by and say "This is against the law. Don't stock this. Here's a set of colour pictures on plain copy paper of the common stuff you can't stock. We'll be back to have a peek around in two weeks." ?


----------



## danchapps (10 Jul 2010)

I stop in at Supply Sergeant about once or twice a month. I have a habbit of checking the manufacturers tags, and not once have I seen legitimate CADPat uniforms for sale. I haven't taken a look at the TAC vests yet, maybe next trip in. I'd be able to tell pretty much instantly if it is real or a recreation. Remember, it's not illegal to sell CADPat style clothing, it just can't be the chemical treated IR resistant stuff. The tag on the inside tells it all.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2010)

I am now law expert but would MPs have juristiction to do that at a civilian business?  I would hazard a guess they would have to involve the city police or RCMP perhaps.


----------



## danchapps (10 Jul 2010)

Well, if it was DND property in there they would have some authority I would imagine, however I'm sure they'd be in contact with LEO as a courtesy. As for what an MP does off duty, well that's their own perogative. If they happen to see something in there then they can inform their on duty co-workers to come down and deal with it.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jul 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Fly by night e-bay merchants are one thing. Established, stable surplus stores sell this crap openly. Dropped by Supply Sergeant in Edmonton in the last couple weeks, could've picked up a tac vest, cadpat combats, bushcap and whatnot. I know I can do the same in Kingston. What kind of effort would it really take for MPs to drop by and say "This is against the law. Don't stock this. Here's a set of colour pictures on plain copy paper of the common stuff you can't stock. We'll be back to have a peek around in two weeks." ?



I suppose the MPs could. 

BUT.....then the local media states:

"Local small businesses bullied by Military Police"

Whether its true or not.


----------



## Brasidas (14 Jul 2010)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I stop in at Supply Sergeant about once or twice a month. I have a habbit of checking the manufacturers tags, and not once have I seen legitimate CADPat uniforms for sale. I haven't taken a look at the TAC vests yet, maybe next trip in. I'd be able to tell pretty much instantly if it is real or a recreation. Remember, it's not illegal to sell CADPat style clothing, it just can't be the chemical treated IR resistant stuff. The tag on the inside tells it all.



While in Kingston, an anal retentive coursemate dropped by the army surplus store by 86 Princess and bought himself a full extra set of combats so he could keep one to look pretty while on parade. It's out there. Unless it's legal to have knockoffs identical down to the sizing label, sans the IR stuff that goes away in the laundry, I can get it in a store.

As of June 24, there is an issue temperate-pattern tac vest at Supply Sergeant in West Ed.


----------



## Spañiard (13 Aug 2010)

Personally I don't wear Canadian Issue gear except two Items, since I served for 5+ years. I collect Canadian Second World war or Airborne Patches etc. Last week just out of curiosity I checked EvilBay aka Ebay its full of Canadian Armed Forces Gear present issue which I know It's illegal to own, Now I do have the Boonie Hat and the Cadpat shooters Vail but I bought them at the Valcartier PX, they sell them.

I contacted 3 sellers and advised them that this was not Kosher, two sent me to hell ;D they advised me they could since the Items were sold to them by the Canadian Army ???????? cant remember the name used.

Just go on Evilbay you'll see how much Canadian Gear they sell. I advised Ebay trust and safety a few times but I never got a reply from them, as example this seller has sold in the past

removed by mod


----------



## AideMemoire (6 Sep 2010)

Any security plan which absolutely relies upon 100% complete control of bits of kit is doomed to failure because of the sheer scale of issue and the number of different hands the kit has to pass through - each an opportunity for accidental loss, disposal due to unfamiliarity with disposal regs, 'doing someone a favour' and genuine human error.  Unfortunately it's fairly easy for the government to adopt the position "it's illegal to own...(x-bit-of-kit)" despite the fact no illegal activity took place anywhere in the prior chain of ownership - which needlessly creates a new class of criminals with the stroke of a clueless pen.


The supply chain is immense, and the longer kit is out there - the more opportunities there are for control problems.  I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.  I think that MPs and local LEOs who think of everything as a binary proposition (one or zero, black or white) just really aren't standing far enough away from the picture to be able to see the whole thing.   They have to take things at a case-by-case basis and have to prove illegal activity -- that's the job -- and to try to adopt the position that "well...it's illegal to own" is not doing that job, nor standing up for the rights of those same citizens most of us put the uniform on to defend to begin with. It's just convenient. And organizationally lazy. :yellow:


----------



## Occam (6 Sep 2010)

AideMemoire said:
			
		

> in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.



If controlled goods were released onto civvie street, then someone broke the regs - therefore there was illegal activity.  Simple as that.  Someone didn't do their job, whether it was the person who was issued CADPAT selling it to a surplus store, or a supply tech selling a bin of stuff to a surplus store, or the person who was supposed to burn a bin of CADPAT clothing diverting it to a surplus store.  Someone broke the law.  There's no legal way for it to find its way onto civvie street.


----------



## armyvern (7 Sep 2010)

AideMemoire said:
			
		

> Any security plan which absolutely relies upon 100% complete control of bits of kit is doomed to failure because of the sheer scale of issue and the number of different hands the kit has to pass through - each an opportunity for accidental loss, disposal due to unfamiliarity with disposal regs, 'doing someone a favour' and genuine human error.  Unfortunately it's fairly easy for the government to adopt the position "it's illegal to own...(x-bit-of-kit)" despite the fact no illegal activity took place anywhere in the prior chain of ownership - which needlessly creates a new class of criminals with the stroke of a clueless pen.
> 
> 
> The supply chain is immense, and the longer kit is out there - the more opportunities there are for control problems.  I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.  I think that MPs and local LEOs who think of everything as a binary proposition (one or zero, black or white) just really aren't standing far enough away from the picture to be able to see the whole thing.   They have to take things at a case-by-case basis and have to prove illegal activity -- that's the job -- and to try to adopt the position that "well...it's illegal to own" is not doing that job, nor standing up for the rights of those same citizens most of us put the uniform on to defend to begin with. It's just convenient. And organizationally lazy. :yellow:



Lest there be any doubt --- We have thiefs in the CF. Surprise.

I've probably seen 500 or so MLRs specificly dealing with combats "lost" ( :) from laundry in the shacks. Why do you think all those COs & Comdts specificly tell their troops not to leave their laundry unattended.

Give a google to the national Court Martial calendar ... see all those links to those S. 114 Court Martials (stealing while entrusted, by reason of employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen) ...


----------



## armyvern (7 Sep 2010)

AideMemoire said:
			
		

> I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.



You can't be speaking of any cadpat patterned item here ...

Since their inception into the system they have never been a 'retention' item and thus no soldier should find his cadpat patterned items making their way to civvy street; the good books say they must return it all to clothing stores - if not, they are breaking the rules (and probably lying on their MLRs at release time to say they "lost" it etc [an offense in and of itself as that is 'fraudulent completion of official government paperwork']).

And, since it's inception all cadpat items have had to be DMil'd prior to disposal action by Supply R&D sections (less the infamous CFB Edmonton R&D section foul-up at the outset). DMil'd via burning to beyond useable or via shredding to non-useable "scrim". A Sup Tech in that section is also signing all the CTAT & ITAR Demilitarization paperwork for all that cadpat "Certifying that item was DMil'd IAW _specific_ instruction". Certifying something as "DMil'd", but not actually DMil'ing it according to it's specific disposal instruction and DMil code, is a federal offense and is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both.


----------



## 2010newbie (2 Nov 2010)

I was in a surplus store in the GTA this past weekend and they had at least a half a dozen CADPAT ICE jackets in great condition. There were probably 30 pairs of CADPAT pants and tunics (all in pretty bad shape though) as well. I checked the labels and they all seemed to be genuine. I saw some tacvests also on my way out that looked pretty genuine, but I didn't get a chance to take a closer look.

The ICE jackets were what shocked me though because they were in such great condition and I remember seeing a posting at the Stores in Toronto saying they were short ICE jackets the last time I was there. It's awful when there isn't kit to issue to members, but surplus stores are acquiring it and selling it to the public.

I mentioned to them that I didn't think it was legal to sell to the public and they were "convinced" that it was.


----------



## Rafterman1 (2 Nov 2010)

2010newbie said:
			
		

> I checked the labels and they all seemed to be genuine.



What will it say on the labels if it is infact genuine?


----------



## 2010newbie (2 Nov 2010)

The labels looked just like all the other CF clothing kit labels, there was the membrane disclaimer, and I believe the description read "Coat Combat - ICE". It also didn't mention "Danger - Imitation CADPAT" on it anywhere.


----------



## AideMemoire (7 Mar 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> If controlled goods were released onto civvie street, then someone broke the regs - therefore there was illegal activity.  Simple as that.  Someone didn't do their job, whether it was the person who was issued CADPAT selling it to a surplus store, or a supply tech selling a bin of stuff to a surplus store, or the person who was supposed to burn a bin of CADPAT clothing diverting it to a surplus store.  Someone broke the law.  There's no legal way for it to find its way onto civvie street.



Again, nice to be able to parcel it all up like that and tie with with a bow -- but mistakes occur, paperwork gets lost, stuff gets put in the wrong bin and it winds up on civvy street buried in a triwall of...DND pillowcases.   In fact, if you take the sheer scale of issue and just start factoring in the law of averages tempered with a bit of Murphy's Law -- you'd be forced to accept that the kit's going to make it out on civvie street.

You're also injecting a lot of...intent...in your reply which just isn't there.  "Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be attributed to stupidity"; i.e., never assume purposeful criminal activity when the background level of general cluelessness (or simple overwork/ understaffed/ overwhelmed) provides all of means, motive and opportunity.  MPs and Various Other Agencies have realized that too, which is why the de facto rule with regard to CADPAT has silently changed to, "not illegal to own - but illegal to very obviously flog on Ebay or in Airsoft forums and force us to do something about it given current written regs."  

So, now picture yourself as the MP having to go around and visit all these surplus dealers who are selling CADPAT to cadets or ravers or whomever else.  

"Where did you get this?" Mr. MP asks.
"Where I usually get it...CADC national sealed bid," answers the proprietor.
"Do you have a receipt?" the intrepid investigator continues.
"Why yes...yes I do...' One lot, scrap textiles, CFB Petawawa, 430 kgs," answers the surplus store owner.

And in that lot there were four triwalls of air force coveralls, one triwall of lingerie'd CF combats, one load of brand new ICES parkas etc. in green, and beneath a stack of fleeces in the remaining three triwalls was more arid and temperate CADPAT than you could shake a stick at.  All 'scrap textiles'. All legally purchased.  Did some ASU bin rat make a huge mistake? Sure. Was it a criminal mistake? Maybe. Was it the surplus store owner's criminal mistake - or perhaps CADC's?  Or ASU's?  Who gets to decide that?  

My scenario there happens several times a year despite best intentions and regulations because someone, somewhere in the supply chain will make a mistake. They have to. They're human. The Law of Averages demands it. 

(I know of lots of stuff that got out that very way, though my specific example is a composite of a few of them.)


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2011)

AideMemoire said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My scenario there happens several times a year despite best intentions and regulations because someone, somewhere in the supply chain will make a mistake. They have to. They're human. The Law of Averages demands it.
> 
> (I know of lots of stuff that got out that very way, though my specific example is a composite of a few of them.)



And mistakes are all well and good; that's why they are mistakes. Although, used cadpat "should" have been gone through by at least 3 different desks/sections by the time it "mistakenly" makes its way into a ROS triwall headed out the door via CADC. So still absolutely preventable if processing rule were followed for 100% vetting. Finding "an" item mistakenly in a triwall is one thing - finding a 1/2 triwall of it buried beneath other stuff only means some section somewhere isn't following processing guidelines to certify as that would have "found" that non-authorized stuff hidden below that other stuff. Exactly why they also aren't supposed to mix the triwalls at clothing, or R&D. In short, if those sections followed the procedures put in place, your above should not happen for craploads of items as you are insinuating it does. Now, as for intent, just how does a 1/2 triwall of unauthorized goods therefore become buried beneath other goods that are authorized if proper procedures had been followed at that triwalls 3 stops (clothing counter where return occured & items are first sorted, to clothing warehouse for processing the triwalls and counting to go to R&D, then R&D finally processing, vetting, inspecting and certifying those triwalls as scrap to go CADC)?? I'm curious. Or was someone's "intent" to avoid doing their job properly and save time/effort by simply burying it beneath other stuff?

Curiously too, 99.99% of the stuff that I'm seeing on e-bay doesn't have that big infamous "D" marked on to its label either ... another sign that it has not been through the above proper supply procedures, or, for that matter, through Base Supply at all. If you're getting triwalls of non-authorized items with no "D"s coming out of an R&D somewhere ... then it is a systemic failure to follow proper processing at that location --- not a mere "mistake" and that makes it "officially actionable" as those pers are therefore failing to comply with DND & CTAT disposal regulations.


----------



## bwatch (7 Aug 2011)

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CANADIAN-CADPAT-GEN-ISSUE-COMBAT-PANTS-7338-NEW-LARG-LO-/390336366259?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae1dc46b3


----------



## bwatch (7 Aug 2011)

When I left, I was able to keep my Uniform (CF GREEN's)but had to turn in everyting else but when the family home went up in flames, what I had, went with it. Be nice if I could get another set


----------



## shikenhaihiramatsu (30 May 2012)

I have started to see more civilians in my area wearing the combat pants or in one case a complete uniform set minus head dress.  Is there a civilian legal restriction to the wearing of cadpat  ie the combat pants mixed with civilian clothes?  Just checking.


----------



## Loachman (30 May 2012)

There are various items of look-alike clothing available in surplus shops. They are legal to wear.

Personally, I do not care if civilians wear these items, so long as they have fresh haircuts, are cleanly shaven, have shiney boots, all draw strings and buttons are done up, they are not smoking as they shuffle along, and are not wearing any rank or qualification badges or any other insignia that they have not earned, or are attempting to pass themselves off as serving members.

The latter can set them up for Criminal Code charges.


----------



## shikenhaihiramatsu (30 May 2012)

the cases I am seeing are civilians wearing combat pants for the sake of having"cool" cargo pants.  Are not clean shaven and are decidedly not trying in any way to pass as a serving member.  Just wondering if the cad pat was considered a restricted item still or if any Joe civi can wear now.  Just checking before i walk up to one and ask where they acquired them. The items I have seen are issue. Not look alike.


----------



## chrisf (30 May 2012)

shikenhaihiramatsu said:
			
		

> not trying in any way to pass as a serving member



Unshaven civies have been wearing army surplus for years... see attached...

In all seriousness, unless they're trying to pass themselves off as a member of the Canadian forces, and assuming it's not stolen kit, how does it affect you in any way?

Why not enjoy the fact that cadpat is cool... or would you rather long for the days when the average citizen was only vaguely aware we had a military?

Did it look anything like these? http://www.cpgear.com/StoreBox/appa/1010_01.htm because anyone with $60 and desire for relish pants can get their hands on a set from these fine folks.


----------



## RememberanceDay (5 Jun 2012)

I wear surplus gear on a regular basis. My winter coat? Surplus. Shoes/boots? Surplus. Pants, shirts, etc? Surplus. All my travelling gear (Rucks, duffles)? Surplus. Tent? Surplus. Warm headgear? Surplus. You get the idea. I don't EVER try and pass myself off as a serving member, infact, I've corrected more than one person (I usually wear my hair in a bun regularly, thanks to cadets...) that I am NOT a serving member of the CF, and explain how what I'm wearing, while representing uniforms that the CF may wear, distinctions from it (eg shoulder flashes, uniforms and civis mix-matched, etc.).


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

It does make for good work wear. I've seen plenty of construction types wearing surplus combats, some CADPAT, some in older pattern OD.


----------



## Boxtop22 (16 Apr 2015)

My only question would be: Are police officers or civies allowed to wear official CADPAT or CADPAT-like gear as they want. 
In the case of police officers, it seems like them wearing this uniform or any piece similar to the uniform, may have a negative impact on how the CAF are perceived by the public.
My true question being: are there any DND or Federal Laws preventing Civies from wearing CADPAT or CADPAT-like piece of uniforms?
If yes: which ones? If no: don't you think we should make sure that trigger happy, half-trained civ. police officers cannot wear our uniform as part of their "strike" apparel as it is the case in Montreal or other major cities in Qc.


----------



## Alberta Bound (16 Apr 2015)

Do you have any examples of police services that issue and wear cadpat as duty wear?

As for the half trained trigger happy comment, I will leave that as your assessment based on your extensive military experience. 

AB


----------



## KerryBlue (16 Apr 2015)

Police do not wear CADPAT. RCMP Emergency Response Team  wears Multi-Cam when the situation calls for it. I.e manhunt in a forested area. Most local police ERT teams do not wear camo at any time, sticking with either a gray black scheme or the blue back scheme. The wearing of camo by police officers really has little bearing on how the CAF is perceived rather it has bearing on how the police are perceived.


----------



## mariomike (16 Apr 2015)

Boxtop22 said:
			
		

> My true question being: are there any DND or Federal Laws preventing Civies from wearing CADPAT or CADPAT-like piece of uniforms?
> If yes: which ones?



The legality of civilians wearing CADPAT is a popular topic of discussion.

Sale of Canadian military uniforms on internet sparks investigation  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/16339.0/nowap.html

Question re: Military Law/Cadpat  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25680.0

Military issued cadpat allowed to be sold to civvies?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/35975.0

Difference between military isue CADPAT uniform and civi CADPAT uniforms  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/107160.0

Army Cadets and CADPAT- The Final Word  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/68738.0

Wearing Cadpat  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/86964.0

Edit to add:

Going hunting.. cadpat?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/85882.0

CF issued kit use for civi purposes 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/162.0.html

As well as other threads about wearing CADPAT for paint-balling etc.



			
				Boxtop22 said:
			
		

> In the case of police officers, it seems like them wearing this uniform or any piece similar to the uniform, may have a negative impact on how the CAF are perceived by the public.



I don't know about out of town, but Toronto ETF Police ( and ETF Paramedics ) wear solid gray. Not likely to be confused with CADPAT.


----------



## Boxtop22 (16 Apr 2015)

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I will take back the trigger-happy part of my comment as it is not essential to my argument - I was referring to the fact that Montreal's SPVM has been involved in multiple shootings which resulted in preventable losses of lives. 

The example I can provide is the following: The Montreal Police has been on strike for months, and a way for them to express the fact that they're on strike is not to wear their full regular uniform. They will replace their trousers with (most of the time) military trousers  (EROL / MARPAT / CADPAT) etc. I find it odd that individuals (which are technically supposed to represent law and order) are allowed to use cadpat/ or cadpat-like uniform (or part-of) as a way to protest, while it is supposed to be something you must earn and something you respect...

As for the comment regarding my experience, I think it was avoidable. My question does not relate to my experience, and the reason why I am here is to obtain answers from more experienced and knowledgeable individuals, but let us not make that the point of interest and pass on.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

Although not part of the answer to your question, I can find no link between the type of uniform that a Police officer wears and their involvement in shootings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2015)

CADPAT like items are available on the civilian market (CP Gear being just one supplier). Quit sweating this and do some research here. There's already past discussions on this subject.


----------



## Boxtop22 (16 Apr 2015)

I do not want to draw this conversation towards the trigger happy part. I will attempt to make a final clarification.

My argument is not against all police forces, nor police officers in general. I respect their job and I would assume most of them are respectable individuals doing a very difficult job, in very difficult settings.

The point I failed to emphasize on was the public perception of our local police force. I believe they are perceived in a very negative way, more-so than it would be expected in other cities across Canada. Their excessive use of firearms, which has sometime resulted in preventable deaths has greatly contributed to that reputation of them being "unprofessional" and "trigger-happy" - Recent examples include a bystander who was shot by a constable in 2011, a non-threatening 70 yo suicidal man was shot in the abdomen by another constable, and I personally ended between a constable's sight and her suspect because she had not even attempted to look at her surroundings before drawing her weapon. Was "trigger-happy" the proper term? Maybe not, and if it wasn't I do apologize. 

How is this relevant to my point? I firmly believe that this behaviour (among others) has given the Police force a very bad reputation, and when they decide to wear CADPAT/CADPAT-like pieces of uniform, they transpose that perception on the piece of uniform they are wearing (which represents the CAF in the mind of many). I am not simply debating or inquiring about the legality (answers were given to me) but also about how comfortable people feel about that. 

Thank you for your answers, and I will quit sweating it, as it is probably becoming too much for nothing.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2015)

If anything their lack of 'professionalism' reflects back on them.....Not the CAF.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2015)

Boxtop22 said:
			
		

> Thank you for your answers, and I will quit sweating it, as it is probably becoming too much for nothing.



You're welcome.
Locked.


----------



## aarronthomas30 (27 Jun 2015)

So today I saw a civvie seeling what looked pretty genuine cadpat with CF tags and he was just selling them


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jun 2015)

aarronthomas30 said:
			
		

> So today I saw a civvie seeling what looked pretty genuine cadpat with CF tags and he was just selling them



Take pictures. Go to the MPs


----------



## cinderblocked (20 Dec 2015)

After seeing legitimate CADPAT fleece, complete with NSN tags and some previous owners last name sharpied on, I started searching to find the legality of surplus stores selling REAL CADPAT.

after reading this entire thread, and searching on my own, I have found no law applicable to surplus stores. Military law applicable to someone caught selling or destroying real cadpat uniforms, yes.

but no law stating that a store may not sell a real cadpat uniform. Anyone have a link or concise explination? thanks.


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2015)

Well "possession of stolen property" is a criminal offence in Canada, so there's a start...


----------



## cinderblocked (20 Dec 2015)

I understand what you mean by stolen property, however possessing CADPAT doesn't meet the elements of the offense for that particular offense, as not returning your issued kit isn't punishable by indictable offense, merely an offense according to the QR&O's and the NDA.

please correct me if I'm wrong here


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2015)

Now you're rolling down a rabbit hole. Did you fraudulently claim something was lost to get to keep it? Was it a paperwork error, but you didn't didn't have the ethical standing to return the kit on release?

*You is the royal you, not you specifically.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2015)

It's stolen from the Crown. Members have been charged with theft under the Criminal Code for selling issued kit.

"Not returning" your kit is very different from selling it to a surplus store or on Kijiji.


----------



## cinderblocked (21 Dec 2015)

Exactly, the legality of selling the items gets muddied. I'm asking from a LE perspective, as I'm more than happy to go after shops selling genuine issued kit that definitely isn't surplus or bought as "surplus scrap". I've asked my superiors about it before and they just shurg and say "it's not illegal to sell it". 

So I'm asking for the forums help to find the actual legal document that states selling these items is illegal. Then I'll go on seizing spree, and pass on the info to my coworkers


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2015)

Well I'm not a lawyer or an LEO, but I know of a member being charged under the Criminal Code for selling issued kit. He kind of disappeared after that and I have no idea if he ever got convicted. It fits the definition easily enough.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-322.html



> 322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
> (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
> (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
> (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
> (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.


----------



## cinderblocked (21 Dec 2015)

you're 100% right, but for that I'd have to catch them selling it. I'm wondering what happens when the store already has it, and is selling it.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Dec 2015)

I've had a few investigations I've either done or supervised in which retailers were selling cadpat items and in all cases they were either knock off items or items they bought by the triwall, legitimately, as surplus.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2015)

Does the investigation stop there, or do you then start looking at who improperly disposed of CADPAT in the triwall without shredding?


----------



## BinRat55 (21 Dec 2015)

Well, it's kind of semantics, as the points have been made, however as an added layer if controversy our CADPAT contains actual controlled technology. The IR properties found in the material is not allowed to fall outside of the Canadian Military. We used to burn it, however environmental laws interveined saying that the chemical when burned was creating a disturbance in the "force"... which is why we now shred it. Failing all that, as previously stated, any kit I issue to your IA (Individual Account) is on loan only. You don't own it - my CO (by virtue of the crown) does. Once it leaves your trust, unless it's being returned to the crown, it's stolen.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Well, it's kind of semantics, as the points have been made, however as an added layer if controversy our CADPAT contains actual controlled technology.  The IR properties found in the material is not allowed to fall outside of the Canadian Military.



That now brings up CTAT.  Under CTAT, there are legal ramifications as to whom can own and use the "Controlled Technology".  It would be a criminal offence for someone other than the Canadian military, some authorized LEO's, or a very few authorized Contractors to use it.



			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> We used to burn it, however environmental laws interveined saying that the chemical when burned was creating a disturbance in the "force"... which is why we now shred it. Failing all that, as previously stated, any kit I issue to your IA (Individual Account) is on loan only. You don't own it - my CO (by virtue of the crown) does. Once it leaves your trust, unless it's being returned to the crown, it's stolen.



What Charges could be laid would require delving deeply into all the Controlled Technology documents and references to International Agreements.  DAOD 3003-0, Controlled Goods may be a place to start.

You may also find info at:

Canada's Implementation of the new International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Dual National Rule
where it is quoted:


> Procedures to Ensure Compliance
> Security assess and certify DOs.
> Conduct compliance inspections of registered companies (including security plans, record keeping, training programs, security breach reports).
> Invoke suspension and revocation, and prosecution procedures as required (including seizure and detention of controlled goods).
> ...


----------



## BinRat55 (21 Dec 2015)

I've actually heard treason is there, although I have never looked for myself...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I've actually heard treason is there, although I have never looked for myself...



The stealing/selling/unauthorized access of Controlled Technology could through legal manipulation come out to be "treason" or "espionage" if one were really playing on technicalities, I suppose.  That would be an interpretation of the Criminal Code that covers such matters, and perhaps require some updating to the Code to keep up with the times.


----------



## BinRat55 (21 Dec 2015)

Yeah - the situation would dictate for sure. Like if needed a quick C-note, and I found a shop that would buy it then i'm selling property that's not mine and the shop is now in posession of stolen property. If I wanted to make a whole lot more and found a buyer outside this country and knowingly sold it knowing they bought it to attempt idedntification of controlled technology - that's a different beast altogether!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Dec 2015)

As usual, a reference to the source always helps. Here are the definitions of High Treason and Treason in the Canadian Criminal Code, and you will see that, depending on the facts, there are some cause where putting controlled goods in the wrong and could amount to Treason:

_OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
Marginal note:Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
Marginal note:Overt act

(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2._


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Dec 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I've had a few investigations I've either done or supervised in which retailers ... bought by the triwall, legitimately, as surplus.



This is quite impossible. I have ran R&D sections on two separate bases. My responsibilities included inspecting the triwalls going to CADC for sale (all scrap textiles, rubber, leather, metals and furniture to mane several...) and the law states that all items found within DND are to be dispositioned (repaired, destroyed in a specific manner or sold to the public) in a very specific way. Every item has a code (Repairability code or Demilitarized code) All CADPAT (not up for debate) must be rendered into shreds and from there it becomes landfill. No CADPAT is sold to surplus stores "legitimately".


----------



## Stoker (29 Dec 2015)

bossi said:
			
		

> Hats off to Franko!  His gut instinct was right ...
> 
> http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=519bf705-bbb1-4883-a90c-d7df543ee3f0
> 
> ...



I also know of prototype cadpat being sold off in the early days of the program, so it does happen and not impossible.


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Dec 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I also know of prototype cadpat being sold off in the early days of the program, so it does happen and not impossible.



I agree with you on that - in the _early_ years direction was unclear, not passed on properly and in some cases nonexistent. That was 10-12 years ago. You would be hard pressed to find CADPAT on the market "accidentally" and not "legitimately". When i stated "quite impossible" I meant to refer directly to the legitimately part. My many years as a supply tech I have seen my fair share of, well, tomfoolery and sneakiness - that part isn't impossible - actually it's now come to be expected (as sad and troublesome as that is...)


----------

