Technical or Specialized Operations

[AALTIS]

I would like to know of any units that have members who have received permission per CAPR 60-3 Section1-31 Technical or Specialized Operations to conduct those types of emergency services specialties?

I'm not interested in your opinions of whether we should or should not, just if you know of those doing this.

Thanks

[sarmed1]

TXWG and FLWG both put "ROPE" on 101 card (the old yellow version) and a few other people I knew at the time.  Years a go in PA I knew of a guy that was authorized for K-9 search on his 101 by wing.

I never saw any sort of approved "supplement" for any of those cases (I had one locally in TX, but was never told if that was approved beyond the "skill set" on my card)

MK

[Private Investigator]

For the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (2/1/2003) I understand members searched on horseback for debris and remains. But I do not recall anyone being "Mounted Search and Rescue". It was a resource some indiviuals had and likely put to use.   

[TarRiverRat]

MER had a mounted patrol a few years ago.  I believe from the Maryland wing.  Not sure if they are still operating or not.  Saw an article about them but don't know much about the program.

[JC004]

MER had a mounted patrol a few years ago.  I believe from the Maryland wing.  Not sure if they are still operating or not.  Saw an article about them but don't know much about the program.

http://www.mdcap.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.display&articleID=85

[Public Affairs Guy]

South Dakota Wing had the 53rd Mounted SAR Patrol from 1992 to 2012.

[Eclipse]

South Dakota Wing had the 53rd Mounted SAR Patrol from 1992 to 2012.

What happened to the first 52?

I've always thought that a motorcycle-mounted SAR team could be infinitely more effective then one
in a van or car, especially if the crash site winds up being difficult to access.  Dual-sports would have been
sweet for Katrina or Sandy - few places they can't go.

But even that wouldn't be "technical" in the way that 60-1 purports, that's just the modus of transport, same with the horses.
A legally licensed POV doesn't need any special permission to be used, as like an airplane, the licensing is handled externally.
(Yeah, I know, wing CC is supposed to approve POVs - how many wings actually do that?)

The answer to the OP is "none". If it's not on the 101, CAP isn't supposed to be doing it.

[AALTIS]

One of the specific items on the list that I was looking for was canine SAR.  I have heard that a guy that knew a guy that once met a guy at a CAP conference once saw a CAP canine.  I would like to know some specifics for something that I'm working on.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to recruit Rin Tin Tin.

[Eclipse]

One of the specific items on the list that I was looking for was canine SAR.  I have heard that a guy that knew a guy that once met a guy at a CAP conference once saw a CAP canine.  I would like to know some specifics for something that I'm working on.  Don't worry, I'm not trying to recruit Rin Tin Tin.

You'll have to ask the guy that made up the story.

There's been no CAP canine SAR in the last two decades, at least.  Some goober pilot bringing his dog on a mission (BTDT) doesn't count.

[sardak]

I have heard that a guy that knew a guy that once met a guy at a CAP conference once saw a CAP canine.

Maybe this is one of those guys.

http://alwaysvigilant.blogspot.com/2009/01/cap-first-cap-k9-team.html

http://www.ner.cap.gov/news/NINERSpring09.pdf

Mike

[lordmonar]

when I went to NESA is '07 there was a CAP member who had a certified SAR dog.

[Alaric]

Ohio has a qualified SAR dog

[PHall]

We have a member in CAWG who has a certified Search dog and she does use him on missions.
She's also a very active member of a Search Dog organization and they are the ones who certified her and the dog.

[Eclipse]

A member having a dog isn't the same as the organization doing canine SAR.

My guess would be that no one has actually asked the question as to whether those dogs are allowed to
be there officially and in the capacity as a CAP search asset.

"No one minded before." Won't mean much if someone gets bitten, or a person dies because CAP followed a dog in the wrong direction.

[AALTIS]

Eclipse,  my guess is that the above teams that have had articles published have been given approval to utilize their dogs.

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.  So there are some that have met the requirements per the regs.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse,  my guess is that the above teams that have had articles published have been given approval to utilize their dogs.

By whom and how, exactly.

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.

Cite please - not in a CAP uniform during ES he isn't.

[sardak]

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.  So there are some that have met the requirements per the regs.

Having a member signed off in USAR and/(or) high angle (which are two completely different specialties) is useless.

Mike

[JC004]

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.  So there are some that have met the requirements per the regs.

Having a member signed off in USAR and/(or) high angle (which are two completely different specialties) is useless.

Mike

Pretty much.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse,  my guess is that the above teams that have had articles published have been given approval to utilize their dogs.

By whom and how, exactly.

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.

Cite please - not in a CAP uniform during ES he isn't.

I've looked....and I can't find the reg that says CAP can't do high angle rescure......don't know what USAR is is.

Where I can point out in CAPR 60-3 that they can do it on CAP time.

emergency services operations unless required by state law. More specific guidance on CAP's firearms policy can be found in CAPR 900-3, Firearms - Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials.
1-31. Technical or Specialized Operations. CAP often recruits personnel with specialized training or expertise that can be useful on emergency services missions. Though the training required to specialize in these areas is often too cost prohibitive or risky for most personnel to undertake, CAP can still utilize these resources.
a. Members wishing to utilize the training they have earned must have prior permission to do so from NHQ CAP/DO, with written endorsement by the wing and/or region commander. The request must state the limitations proposed for use and how they propose to mitigate risk. If approved by the Air Force for use on an Air Force mission, these members will receive FTCA and FECA coverage just like any other member. Any additional liability coverage required to exercise these privileges is at the expense of the member. CAP personnel choosing to train to be useful in technical areas do so at their own risk. Background training and documentation will be kept at the wing or higher unit for each person given permission for these specialized operations.
b. Any special equipment or resources required for these personnel to exercise their privileges are furnished at the member's own expense and risk.
c. The following technical or specialized operations are considered acceptable but still require prior written approval:
(1) Technical (Rope) Rescue or Mountain Rescue
(2) Canine Search and Rescue
(3) Mounted Search and Rescue
(4) Urban Search and Rescue
Additional areas will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Questions on other areas should be addressed to the NHQ CAP/DO.
d. Wing and region commanders should review the current letters of permission on file at least annually and coordinate revisions as necessary. New wing and region commanders should review the current letters of permission as soon as is feasible after accepting command. Commanders can contact NHQ CAP/DO to request copies of letters on file if necessary.

[sarmed1]

Id more say extremely limiting, but may not useless.  I have been to a number of non CAP rescue incidents where there were limited "rope rescue guys".  That technical specialist is able to coordinate the efforts of the "minimally trained" team members while waiting for the full technical team.  ie setting up staging, determining best access points, locating anchor points, setting up basic lines for access/lowering and in some instances making a basic descent for patient contact.

More qualified team members would be better, but there is a lot you can do with just a few.....

MK

[Eclipse]

Eclipse,  my guess is that the above teams that have had articles published have been given approval to utilize their dogs.

By whom and how, exactly.

I have found in my recent exploration of this topic, that one wing has a member that has been signed off for USAR and high angle.

Cite please - not in a CAP uniform during ES he isn't.

I've looked....and I can't find the reg that says CAP can't do high angle rescure......don't know what USAR is is.

Where I can point out in CAPR 60-3 that they can do it on CAP time.

emergency services operations unless required by state law. More specific guidance on CAP's firearms policy can be found in CAPR 900-3, Firearms - Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials.
1-31. Technical or Specialized Operations. CAP often recruits personnel with specialized training or expertise that can be useful on emergency services missions. Though the training required to specialize in these areas is often too cost prohibitive or risky for most personnel to undertake, CAP can still utilize these resources.
a. Members wishing to utilize the training they have earned must have prior permission to do so from NHQ CAP/DO, with written endorsement by the wing and/or region commander. The request must state the limitations proposed for use and how they propose to mitigate risk. If approved by the Air Force for use on an Air Force mission, these members will receive FTCA and FECA coverage just like any other member. Any additional liability coverage required to exercise these privileges is at the expense of the member. CAP personnel choosing to train to be useful in technical areas do so at their own risk. Background training and documentation will be kept at the wing or higher unit for each person given permission for these specialized operations.
b. Any special equipment or resources required for these personnel to exercise their privileges are furnished at the member's own expense and risk.
c. The following technical or specialized operations are considered acceptable but still require prior written approval:
(1) Technical (Rope) Rescue or Mountain Rescue
(2) Canine Search and Rescue
(3) Mounted Search and Rescue
(4) Urban Search and Rescue
Additional areas will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Questions on other areas should be addressed to the NHQ CAP/DO.
d. Wing and region commanders should review the current letters of permission on file at least annually and coordinate revisions as necessary. New wing and region commanders should review the current letters of permission as soon as is feasible after accepting command. Commanders can contact NHQ CAP/DO to request copies of letters on file if necessary.

The level of special and >specific< permission required tells you exactly how many members are currently properly authorized to do anything on that list.

We have members all over the place who do all sorts of things, until the right people hear about and the knock it off letters are sent,
generally resulting in sour grapes and response about how "messed up CAP is"...

For the record I didn't' say it wasn't allowed, I said there was no one in CAP properly authorized to do it - citing that is easy
when anyone finds someone properly authorized, because I can guarantee you anyone with a letter signed by
NHQ/DO, a Wing CC, Region CC, and the USAF that says they can do something "kewl" mentions it somewhere
between the letters "Hel..." and "...lo"...

[lordmonar]

And you sitting in your position in ILWG know this for sure because?

Eclipse....I love you like a brother.....but you are so full of BS sometimes.

Your love of the regulations gets in the way of other people getting on with the mission.   And then you complain that we only get the mission done by accident.  And when we try to build up the organization around professional standards you complain that it just wont happen because we don't have professionals.  And then we try to make them professionals you complain that we forget that they are just volunteers.     

If someone somewhere is doing high angle rescue on the CAP dime....it is not your problem....unless you recently became a wing commander that I don't know about.   

[Flying Pig]

My big issue with people bringing assets like a dog into a place like CAP is certifications and verifiable performance and evals on the performance of the handler and the dog.  Have you ever spent valuable time following a useless animal and a useless handler?  I have. 

Ive been on a couple SAR missions where the SAR turned into rescuing the horse back mounted searchers because they got themselves into a situation they couldnt get out of.... to include one of the riders being medivac'd.    Volunteer Jeep patrol shows up..... Oh whatayaknow IC... one of the Jeepers was letting his wife drive (for training while on a real SAR) and she just roiled their jeep down the side of the hill and now its upside down in a ravine.....  All true stories. 

Bringing assets to CAP based on geographical needs and abilities is great. Could it be assumed the AK Wing may have people who can cross country ski or have snow mobiles?  Could it be a possibility that Montana Wing may have members with horses?  Sure.  Could the local CAWG member have a little rat-dog that has a yellow USAR vest with some patches?  Sure.  But it doesn't mean we know anything about their capabilities to actually call them an asset.  One approach I witnessed, "Hey, if you want to ride your horse in the same mountains we are searching in, great.  But you aren't going to do it wearing our uniform."  (Non-CAP search)

[AALTIS]

Flying Pig,  While I agree with what you are saying, for the most part that is a problem with SAR in just about every state.  We do have a large number of people in SAR that are just plane not qualified playing in the game. 

As far a canines, please remember that every dog has its day.  I have seen some dogs that are VERY good most of the time just have a terrible day.  I worked with one that most of the time I would have bet money on her.  On one search she couldn't have found a steak 10 feet in front of her.  It happens.

[Flying Pig]

I get that... Ive worked with LE patrol dogs, drug dogs, bomb dogs, SAR dogs, cadaver dogs, blood hounds...... there are people out there who love the idea of being "handlers" but don't invest the time, money or training dollars into making them a real tool.   They join some organization that sends them a patch in the mail.   Lets face it, volunteer organizations are magnets to people who just want to help.  99% of the time they are a legit resource.  However, there are times where they are completely useless.  Its an interesting perspective.  Ive been on several missions where on Sunday I was at the mission as a CAP member, and Monday morning I came back to work the same mission in an LE pilot capacity.  CAP just needs to be careful about trying to be the jack of all trades and master of none.  Aviation, Comms, establishing a mission base, are probably some of the areas CAP is great in as an asset.  Even aviation...... CAP is great when nothing else is available.   Beyond that, even when I was flying the FW for the department, I would get lower and more technical in my flying canyons while CAP was flying 1000' above me.  Not because I was some amazing pilot... heck... my CAP flying skills were honed working CD and doing mountain flying for CAP.   There are a lot of things CAP does on the aviation side that get them made fun of.  Like polo shirts and grey slacks while flying CD missions.  CAP thinks it looks professional while everyone else is asking why I stole grandpa's clothes to go flying today.  Is it superficial?  Yes.  Does it matter?  Yes it does.  Someone told CAP that green flight suits would make escape and evasion more difficult if we got shot down I guess. 
Ground Teams.... Ehhhhhhhhh....... Seriously, in 20+yrs in CAP I have yet to meet a CAP ground team member that I was the slightest bit impressed with as a rescuer vs just a guy walking around in surplus gear with a radio and an orange vest.  Some of you just fell out of your chairs but its true.  Technical rescue?  No.   K9 abilities?  That would be a local asset and it would have to be someone who did it outside of CAP.  If someone is a real handler, they will be part of another organization.  I would have the person come as a member representing that organization, not as a CAP member.   At least in CAWG, CAP is almost always starting at a disadvantage with impressions.  The agency I flew for absolutely would not work with CAP because of a prior incident YEARS earlier.   As the Sq. CC at that local unit I like to think I made some decent strides in getting CAP used on CD ops.  Where you are, CAP may be the go-to organization that makes things happen.   Situational awareness is a key. 

The Orange shirt CAWG recently switched to as a SAR uniform was probably one of the best ideas Ive seen in a while.  Ive heard my share of jokes about people searching in Camo.

I may have gone off on some tangents and my perspective is primarily from a CAWG and CA Law Enforcement perspective.  I realize its not all relevant.  CAP is a national organization that cant cater to each geographic areas individual quirks.....but, thats CAPs issue, not the agencies CAP is trying to work with. 

[Eclipse]

And you sitting in your position in ILWG know this for sure because?

Because I have the same relative access to members outside my wing, not to mention "social" media,
CAP news stories, and back-channel scuttle that you and everyone else does.  I don't limit myself to
news broadcast over the net, I frequent AOL, Geocities web rings, not to mention my Juno email.

We live in a world where Wright Brothers awards are literally a national news story, and when "Frank"
in IDWG gets an ROS for a lost $5 cigarette lighter adapter for a cell phone every front porch member in the
country lights up and discusses it, but you're going to assert there are members in CAP doing properly
approved technical rescue as defined by that document and it's a "secret"?

This is easy, just show use where these people are.

Eclipse....I love you like a brother.....but you are so full of BS sometimes.

I certainly am.  However being "full of BS" and "correct" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Your love of the regulations gets in the way of other people getting on with the mission.   And then you complain that we only get the mission done by accident.  And when we try to build up the organization around professional standards you complain that it just wont happen because we don't have professionals.  And then we try to make them professionals you complain that we forget that they are just volunteers.

There's no context to the above? I'm just some guy who argues all sides of every argument because I'm bored?...OK, wait...anyway...

What you have done above is frame the current situation of CAP ES quite nicely, however, pretty much making my point. NHQ's
conservative nature, coupled with its lawyers and actuaries, have defined such a narrow lane for ES that it is near impossible
to grow or change it without a literal Act of Congress.  CAP recruits people at all levels with all manner of technical expertise and training,
then tells them "Welcome aboard, however there will be none of that here...", and then wonders why a significant number of these
people quit and move on to smaller, less stringent organizations so they can actually use their purported skills and equipment.

The professional / volunteer argument?  Again the paradigm, caused by NHQ's lack of will in enforcing existing regulations coupled
with its lack of will in impressing upon commanders that CAP participation requires "more" then "just" volunteers for anyone who
wants to be involved in the "kewl" stuff.  You can't have members who are allowed to fall back on the "we're just volunteers" mentality
when things get "busy" or "uncomfortable" (you know like work, inspections, training, discipline, appearance, bearing) and yet consider themselves
an asset at a professional (or even semi-pro) level when the flashing lights are on and the waters are rising.

And again, context.     

If someone somewhere is doing high angle rescue on the CAP dime....it is not your problem....unless you recently became a wing commander that I don't know about.

It's all of our problems when its not done properly, because it put the membership and the organization at significant risk,
while also setting improper expectations for everyone from the member to the customer.

[Flying Pig]

We have a member in CAWG who has a certified Search dog and she does use him on missions.
She's also a very active member of a Search Dog organization and they are the ones who certified her and the dog.

Thats the point of my discussion.  She is a handler outside of CAP who happens to bring her skills to CAP.  CAP doesn't train, maintain or have anything to do with her dog.  When one day she leaves CAP, so does that skill set. Its not a CAP qualification or mission.  Therefore, not something CAP should promote.  Sure, use the resource while its available, but don't promote it as an ability CAP brings to a mission.

[Eclipse]

Thats the point of my discussion.  She is a handler outside of CAP who happens to bring her skills to CAP.  CAP doesn't train, maintain or have anything to do with her dog.  When one day she leaves CAP, so does that skill set. Its not a CAP qualification or mission.  Therefore, not something CAP should promote.  Sure, use the resource while its available, but don't promote it as an ability CAP brings to a mission.

Such a simple truth...

[argentip]

Eclipse,  my guess is that the above teams that have had articles published have been given approval to utilize their dogs.

By whom and how, exactly.

The OHWG member has gone through the NHQ process of getting K-9 Handler on her 101 card.  The dog also has been issued a 101 card by NHQ so it can be used as a "CAP asset".

I don't know the details on how it all came about, but this case is legitimately approved through NHQ.

[Eclipse]

Someone pinged me on this via PM as well, had my attention until the comment about a dog being issued a 101.
http://www.goldstardogtraining.org/Kudos/CAP.pdf

"Sawyer" is approved as an "internal" SAR dog only - presumably that means he's OK to be around CAP and can be
used for the canine tasks of GT training (i.e. "stay away from the dogs), but no actual missions, at least not AFAMS,
which granted may not be an issues as most missing persons are corporate missions.  I'm open to being shown otherwise.

Sounds entirely ceremonial / honorary.

[EMT-83]

And why is that stupid dog requirement still on the SQTR. I'm guessing it's the most pencil-whipped task out there.

[Eclipse]

And why is that stupid dog requirement still on the SQTR. I'm guessing it's the most pencil-whipped task out there.

Seriously - same goes for the kitty holes.

[Storm Chaser]

And why is that stupid dog requirement still on the SQTR. I'm guessing it's the most pencil-whipped task out there.

There's no "dog requirement" on the SQTR. Task O-0401 is a knowledge based task, which doesn't required ground team members to actually work with canines. The purpose of this task is to familiarize CAP GTMs with K-9 SAR teams, as they may have to work side-by-side them on certain missions.

[Flying Pig]

Ok.....so my question is, is the handler a CAP member?  If so, then this criteria used should be open to all CAP members interested in using a dog.  If they issued Tina the handler a 101 card, then CAP just made it a skill set that any member should be able to pursue correct?

[Storm Chaser]

Ok.....so my question is, is the handler a CAP member?  If so, then this criteria used should be open to all CAP members interested in using a dog.  If they issued Tina the handler a 101 card, then CAP just made it a skill set that any member should be able to pursue correct?

Any CAP member who's certified through an external organization can request permission to use those skills and training within CAP. That said, the process to request approval is quite cumbersome, as it must go through the chain of command, all the way to NHQ/DO for final approval.

[Flying Pig]

Ok.....so my question is, is the handler a CAP member?  If so, then this criteria used should be open to all CAP members interested in using a dog.  If they issued Tina the handler a 101 card, then CAP just made it a skill set that any member should be able to pursue correct?

Any CAP member who's certified through an external organization can request permission to use those skills and training within CAP. That said, the process to request approval is quite cumbersome, as it must go through the chain of command, all the way to NHQ/DO for final approval.

Well now that someone has obtained the quals it should be pretty easy for someone to follow along behind now.

[lordmonar]

How is this process cumbersome?   It only takes an E-mail.

Wing CC to Region CC.   "My member has a canine and wants to us it on missions, please endorse"
Region CC to CAP DO.  "I endorse this use on CAP missions please approve".
CAP DO....."done"

This is not rocket science and should be a no brainer....and can be done in an afternoon.

Why do you all thing working with NHQ is so hard?

[Storm Chaser]

Because we all know that in CAP it doesn't take an afternoon to approve things like this.

[JeffDG]

Because we all know that in CAP it doesn't take an afternoon to approve things like this.

With a well-written justification they are.

I once got approval for non-CAP passengers on an AFAM (Wing/CC, NOC, LR/ADO, LR/CC, CAP-USAF/XO, CAP-USAF/CC) approved in under 2 hours.

[Eclipse]

This is not rocket science and should be a no brainer....and can be done in an afternoon.

Why do you all thing working with NHQ is so hard?

Coming from an eager new guy, that might be amusing, you know better.  A >LOT< better.

I'm still not buying this is anything but honorary, and the word "internal" is the key to this description.

NHQ can't correct legitimate typos and regulatory conflicts, let alone generate a custom 101 card
with a specialty that doesn't actually exist.  I can make you anything you want to be with Photoshop,
show me how that's done for real.

[Eclipse]

I once got approval for non-CAP passengers on an AFAM (Wing/CC, NOC, LR/ADO, LR/CC, CAP-USAF/XO, CAP-USAF/CC) approved in under 2 hours.

Not even a >LITTLE< close to the same thing.

[JeffDG]

I once got approval for non-CAP passengers on an AFAM (Wing/CC, NOC, LR/ADO, LR/CC, CAP-USAF/XO, CAP-USAF/CC) approved in under 2 hours.

Not even a >LITTLE< close to the same thing.

It's a longer approval chain, and accomplished in a wholly reasonable timeframe.  Heck, even had a couple weeks before the actual flight was scheduled, so there was precisely zero time pressure, just a routine submission, and rather rapid approval.

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between submitting something through an approved process and everyone happened to be
at their computer, and a non-standard process that requires actual consideration and potential unnecessary liability.

For the record, depending on what day of the week it was, and who was on leave where, those last "4" approvals
could have all been the same person, and regardless, generally when the LRADO is good with it, the next 3 don't really
have issues.

[Storm Chaser]

Because we all know that in CAP it doesn't take an afternoon to approve things like this.

With a well-written justification they are.

I once got approval for non-CAP passengers on an AFAM (Wing/CC, NOC, LR/ADO, LR/CC, CAP-USAF/XO, CAP-USAF/CC) approved in under 2 hours.

Not the same thing. What Eclipse said.

[Luis R. Ramos]

So how do I find Sawyer's 101? I tried "Sawyer" but am getting only regular members. Or... does Sawyer has a CAPID as well...?

[Flying Pig]

My thought would be that you would have to search the member.  I cant imagine CAP would formally issue a CAP 101 card to an animal.  Because you would need a CAPID number to even start the process. 

[THRAWN]

My thought would be that you would have to search the member.  I cant imagine CAP would formally issue a CAP 101 card to an animal.  Because you would need a CAPID number to even start the process.

Why? Police departments issue badges to them...

[Flying Pig]

We are talking about CAP.  If it was a real 101 card, there would have to be a CAPID number attached to it.  That was the original question... was it ceremonial or did the dog get a REAL 101 card. 

[PHall]

We are talking about CAP.  If it was a real 101 card, there would have to be a CAPID number attached to it.  That was the original question... was it ceremonial or did the dog get a REAL 101 card.

And do dogs pay normal dues to CAP or is there a special canine rate? Do they need to be safety current?

[Luis R. Ramos]

The dog also has been issued a 101 card by NHQ so it can be used as a "CAP asset".

This is why I searched the dog's name. Because it would probably have shown whether it was ceremonial or not by its different or same wording!

I also found her name (the handler), but will not state what I found on grounds of being FOUO info.

[kratclif]

NHQ can't correct legitimate typos and regulatory conflicts, let alone generate a custom 101 card
with a specialty that doesn't actually exist.  I can make you anything you want to be with Photoshop,
show me how that's done for real.

Why do you think the specialty doesn't actually exist?

What if I told you it was listed for everyone (with appropriate eServices permissions) to see right in the CAPWATCH Achievements table? I'm fairly certain it didn't end up in there without NHQ approval 

Whether or not any members currently hold this specialty is another matter, and I honestly have no idea. But since it's listed in the database as a specialty perhaps it would print on a real 101 card if authorized for a member, no Photoshop required?

[Eclipse]

Whether or not any members currently hold this specialty is another matter, and I honestly have no idea. But since it's listed in the database as a specialty perhaps it would print on a real 101 card if authorized for a member, no Photoshop required?

For a dog?

Are there SETs?  Which Commander approved the pre-reqs?  What about Fam/Prep?
Two mission participation?

What's the doctrine for an "internal SAR dog?"

What's the re-up schedule?

There are sure to be all manner of "things" in the CAPWatch tables that would horrify those who actually
read and adhere to the regs, that doesn't make them viable CAP missions, nor a good idea.

[Private Investigator]

We are talking about CAP.  If it was a real 101 card, there would have to be a CAPID number attached to it.  That was the original question... was it ceremonial or did the dog get a REAL 101 card.

And do dogs pay normal dues to CAP or is there a special canine rate? Do they need to be safety current?

That is funny  :clap:

[Private Investigator]

Whether or not any members currently hold this specialty is another matter, and I honestly have no idea. But since it's listed in the database as a specialty perhaps it would print on a real 101 card if authorized for a member, no Photoshop required?

For a dog?

Are there SETs?  Which Commander approved the pre-reqs?  What about Fam/Prep?
Two mission participation?

What's the doctrine for an "internal SAR dog?"

What's the re-up schedule?

There are sure to be all manner of "things" in the CAPWatch tables that would horrify those who actually
read and adhere to the regs, that doesn't make them viable CAP missions, nor a good idea.

Has a dog every got credit for a "save" or a "find"? Is their a "SAR K-9 of the Year" award?   

[Flying Pig]

We are talking about CAP.  If it was a real 101 card, there would have to be a CAPID number attached to it.  That was the original question... was it ceremonial or did the dog get a REAL 101 card.

And do dogs pay normal dues to CAP or is there a special canine rate? Do they need to be safety current?

That is funny  :clap:

Hall.... now you are just being ridiculous.  You know that no living creature is beyond the tentacles of the safety brief!

[kratclif]

Whether or not any members currently hold this specialty is another matter, and I honestly have no idea. But since it's listed in the database as a specialty perhaps it would print on a real 101 card if authorized for a member, no Photoshop required?

For a dog?

Are there SETs?  Which Commander approved the pre-reqs?  What about Fam/Prep?
Two mission participation?

What's the doctrine for an "internal SAR dog?"

What's the re-up schedule?

There are sure to be all manner of "things" in the CAPWatch tables that would horrify those who actually
read and adhere to the regs, that doesn't make them viable CAP missions, nor a good idea.

No, not for a dog, but a canine handler. The actual text from Achievements.txt is "TSK9 - Technical Specialty K9 Handler"

I have NO other information about this specialty. I posted it because it's factual information relevant to the discussion, not because I think it's a good idea for CAP to perform K9 SAR operations.

[Eclipse]

No, not for a dog, but a canine handler. The actual text from Achievements.txt is "TSK9 - Technical Specialty K9 Handler"

The news articles posted by the dog's owner and handler on her training site, as well as a number of other sources
indicate that the >dog< was issued a 101 card.

No one has indicated yet what "internal" SAR means (just looking for members who get lost during missions?)  But one could conjecture
that this is simply a feel-good situation for all involved, and that the dog isn't allowed to participate in actual missions.

Feel-good things make people feel-good, so be it, but to be touting this as a CAP capability, even marginally, seems somewhat
"benevolent' at best.

[lordmonar]

And grousing about it....even here on CAPTALK is somewhat "malevolent".

[Eclipse]

And grousing about it....even here on CAPTALK is somewhat "malevolent".

No - it's called holding the organization to its rules and common sense.  Something which apparently isn't important to some people,
which is why it's in the state it is.

CAP has regulations about correspondence and use of insignia and indices, and "empowered" working groups decide to
change things without actually updating the pertinent regulations. "For the good of the corps".

CAP has regulations about what is, and what >isn't< an ES mission, yet there are "empowered" people all over the organization
who simple "do what they will" without thought to the organizational members ramifications and consequences. "For the good of the corps."

CAP has regulations about uniform wear and appearance which are nearly universally ignored or altered as hoc because commanders
have no imperative to stress discipline and good order, because that might cause attrition.  "For the good of the corps."

See how this works?

If it's important enough to do, it's important to do it correctly and by the book.

[Luis R. Ramos]

My point of view is that Eclipse, PHall, and others asking about this are right. Again, it goes to credibility. Members pick on this story then go bragging about our capabilities to others outside, our credibility as a SAR asset just goes down.

The news stated "the dog is an internal search asset with a 101 card." When Senator Joe Q. Public or County Admin Jane Public Doe ask our member who just stated "we have search canines" asks "how many" and "capabilities?" and our member goes "errr, just one certified," and "internal." What will those officials say?

I am sure they will not say "welcome."

[sarmed1]

My guess the "internal" thing means they only operate on CAP tasked missions.  ie they can't go out on a local search unless CAP as a whole is called out (and my guess is you can't call CAP just for the one dog team)

MK

[Andrew Loy]

And you can change all of this when you become the National Commander... 

No - it's called holding the organization to its rules and common sense.  Something which apparently isn't important to some people,
which is why it's in the state it is.

CAP has regulations about correspondence and use of insignia and indices, and "empowered" working groups decide to
change things without actually updating the pertinent regulations. "For the good of the corps".

CAP has regulations about what is, and what >isn't< an ES mission, yet there are "empowered" people all over the organization
who simple "do what they will" without thought to the organizational members ramifications and consequences. "For the good of the corps."

CAP has regulations about uniform wear and appearance which are nearly universally ignored or altered as hoc because commanders
have no imperative to stress discipline and good order, because that might cause attrition.  "For the good of the corps."

See how this works?

If it's important enough to do, it's important to do it correctly and by the book.
[/quote]

[Eclipse]

And you can change all of this when you become the National Commander... 

It might be nice to have these issues addressed sometime before hell freezes over...

[SarDragon]

Hell is already almost frozen over. Give it a couple of weeks. It happens every year. Hell is about 270 miles from the Palwaukee Airport.

[Private Investigator]

Whether or not any members currently hold this specialty is another matter, and I honestly have no idea. But since it's listed in the database as a specialty perhaps it would print on a real 101 card if authorized for a member, no Photoshop required?

For a dog?

Are there SETs?  Which Commander approved the pre-reqs?  What about Fam/Prep?
Two mission participation?

What's the doctrine for an "internal SAR dog?"

What's the re-up schedule?

There are sure to be all manner of "things" in the CAPWatch tables that would horrify those who actually
read and adhere to the regs, that doesn't make them viable CAP missions, nor a good idea.

No, not for a dog, but a canine handler. The actual text from Achievements.txt is "TSK9 - Technical Specialty K9 Handler"

I have NO other information about this specialty. I posted it because it's factual information relevant to the discussion, not because I think it's a good idea for CAP to perform K9 SAR operations.

Can the dog have canine ABUs? 

[LTCinSWR]

Can the dog have canine ABUs? 

Years ago, I had a Squadron Commander who had a Weimaraner that had his own Woodland Pattern backpack/saddlebag/vest combination. Looked great - had a wing patch on the left side and a squadron patch on the right side of the vest. He packed his bowl, food, etc.

The CC was an interesting guy (I worked with him in the paying world). He also raised emus.