Venting about attitudes

[floridacyclist]

^ Difference between the phrase "Boy Scout" and "Scout".  No Difference between "Ranger" and "Ranger".  How dare hawk grads call themselves "Ranger".  I also have never found any reference to "Ranger Grade" in any CAP manual/ reg.  Other than what PAWG puts together, which is crappy by the way there is no reference. 

Most Scout troops drop the Boy part unless it is in something official. Funny how most folks with issues with the name were never in the US Army Rangers yet the RealRangers@ seem to have no problem judging by their offer of help. Yet another case of other CAP folks taking us much more seriously than we take ourselves.

You don't need a regulation for an unofficial achievement that carries no more weight than the title of "encampment honor cadet" (which is similarly reg-less). Without the GT* credentials to back it up (which pretty closely parallel the Ranger Levels with certain additions thrown into the Ranger testing), the Ranger card doesn't do you much good unless you laminated it and needed an improvised ice-scraper. Either way, NHQ has accepted the program, and so have several other programs as evidenced by the passage

DOD resources that may be available to assist include Air Force pararescue personnel, and specialized teams such as Army, Navy, and Air Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams, Navy sea-air-land (SEAL) teams, or CAP ranger teams.

in the  U.S. National Search and Rescue Supplement to the IAMSAR Manual .

I guess it just gets rather tiresome to have to put up with flak from one or two people every time the "R" word gets mentioned; it's like we're supposed to hide our association with this group. You know, secret midnight meetings on New Moon nights etc.

If I was up here singing praises and shouting that Rangers walk on water, I could understand some of the animosity, but considering my laid-back attitude towards this whole affair, I just don't get it. All I know is that the kids that we work with are enjoying themselves, they are excited to be in CAP, they are learning leadership in real-world situations, and as long as we stay within the regs, I don't see a single cotton-picking thing that we're doing wrong. To me that is certainly no reason for this ungentlemanly and distinctly non-officer-like conduct that is displayed any time the "R" word gets mentioned no matter what the context is.

Some folks must be pretty unhappy with their situations if they have all this free time and energy to go looking for other folks to bash on rather than accepting that it takes all kinds of rowers to make the boat go forward.

[SJFedor]

^ Difference between the phrase "Boy Scout" and "Scout".  No Difference between "Ranger" and "Ranger".  How dare hawk grads call themselves "Ranger".  I also have never found any reference to "Ranger Grade" in any CAP manual/ reg.  Other than what PAWG puts together, which is crappy by the way there is no reference. 

Most Scout troops drop the Boy part unless it is in something official. Funny how most folks with issues with the name were never in the US Army Rangers yet the RealRangers@ seem to have no problem judging by their offer of help. Yet another case of other CAP folks taking us much more seriously than we take ourselves.

I won't sing mikey's list of achievements, but if he's upset about it, he's earned the right to be rightly so.

Personally, the only issue I have is that, at least, last that I heard, they're not teaching the national standard ES training at Hawk towards the GT ratings that are what really matter, therefore, like you said, the training they're doing is worth no more than an ice scraper in a pinch.

I just don't understand why we can't find one national program to teach the standard, so you don't get people from one wing, with their program, trained differently then those from another wing, with another program, mixed together at a big event, and end up having conflict that interferes with the mission. Please understand I'm, by no means, bashing on what FLWG does, because it sounds like, from the things I've heard, you guys find a nice harmonious mix of the two.

Also, that's really sweet that you guys are getting the RealRangers involved with you guys.

[floridacyclist]

There's no reason to trust what others say about the training standards at Hawk, they're online at http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm
You'll recognize most of them as much of the national curriculum has been incorporated into the training.....not too bad considering that Hawk has had actual training standards a lot longer than CAP has had them.

As far as teaching it, most kids come back from a Ranger event at least a GT grade or so higher than they went in, so somebody's teaching something.

We are working on a National Ranger Curriculum, but part of the issue is that some of the training is region-specific; while the kids may enjoy the ropework at Hawk (and it is definitely a treat to my kids), it holds very little practical relevance here in the swamp. By the same token, swamp and marsh operations would mean very little to CO wing. I was told the other day that we can work on incorporating stuff into the curriculum although I'm not really clear yet what effect that would have on inter-wing acceptance of credentials; right now, my sign-offs are good in PA and vice versa. To put it another way, if we decided to replace mountain survival skills with swamp survival for local training and someone here signed off on his Advanced or Expert, would  that still carry over to PA wing or would he have to accomplish the PA-specific tasks for his rating to be any good there? In a sense, none of this matters as a Ranger card will not get you onto a mission base anyway, but some folks do care about the bling they earn (I'm just not one of them).

Perhaps the best situation is where it seems to be headed now where we have a standard National CAP Curriculum to ensure a basic level of consistency between all folks ES, with the Ranger programs in various states and regions allowed to develop terrain-specific additional training (rappelling in the mountains, swamp and jungle training in FL, desert ops in AZ etc) based on the higher standards of a basic National Ranger Training Curriculum.

Incidentally, I have never said anything out of the way to Mikey, so I fail to see how he has earned the right to say anything of the sort to me.

[Tubacap]

So I've pretty much stayed out of the Ranger discussion for a long time now, but I'd like to add my comments now.  My first impression with Hawk was when a cadet from my squadron came back from it and was the most stuck up cadet I have ever met in my life.  That was an initial distaste in my mouth.  The next was just a few weeks later at an encampment where I was a TAC and I had an entire squadron staff of Hawk staff members.  This was similarly a frustrating experience.  So far, my views were not good at all.

Then, the next year at encampment (and the subsequent 3) were all with Hawk staffs as my Squadron Staff, and I started to take a liking to them.  They were gung-ho for sure, and just needed a little more redirection on the differences between staffing a ranger school, and staffing a basic encampment.  After my brain finally comprehended that, it was much easier to harness their energy and training and use it for good!

Last year, I sent one cadet to Hawk, and this year two.  They have been coming back without the attitude that I had expected, but with a, man that was awesome, can we do some of this in our squadron attitude.  I like that.   I'm not sure if that is something that they are changing as far as indoctrination at the school, or whether it is me as a Squadron DCC knowing how to immediately deal with the situation to make their training more productive for the school in general. 

As far as training standards go.  They still do have the Ranger Grades.  Although I'm not ecstatic about them, I think that they have a fair motivational affect on the cadets, and so therefore have a place.  As everyone else has said though, the training very closely parallels the GT levels now.  In fact, the tasks should be entered into eServices within a few weeks of the schools ending.  If they are not, they get a list of the things that they have accomplished which includes task specific GT level achievements.  In addition, it goes above and beyond and REQUIRES IS 100,200,700,800 before entering the course depending on the level you are attending at.

I myself have never been there.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether I will ever go or not.  I had a real bad taste in my mouth about it the first few years I was in CAP.  The product that has been coming back though the last few years has been great, and I really like the way that they have reworked the program to start becoming NIMS compliant while maintaining the current CAP quals as well.  Maybe in a few years I'll head out and spend a summer in the woods again.

So I guess my diatribe is that the poor attitude on my part was earned by Hawk awhile back.  Whether it was isolated or not, it was my personal experience with them.  Now however, I am starting to get a more positive attitude and am not nearly as leary of sending cadets or for that matter seniors to the courses there.

[floridacyclist]

A quick thought on my last post about standards: Maybe a National certification with endorsements for major terrain types? I know the USA Rangers go through desert, jungle, woodlands, and mountain training; that might be an idea I should run up the flagpole to see if it flies. Have all levels up to Ranger 1st Class on a standard national curriculum and anything higher with a standard curriculum plus at least one terrain endorsement.  This would allow me to earn Advanced or Expert (with a swamp endorsement) here in FL, but if I want the mountain endorsement, I have to go where there are mountains etc etc. I just bounced that off Maj Cason and he wants me to write it up and send it in so he can see what PA Wg thinks of it.

I understand your attitudes. I had a really bad experience with a few Hawk Mountain cadets who came down to help us start our first FL Ranger school. Now to be honest, these kids gave up Christmas at home with their families and came down with Maj Cahalen and Maj Riley so they could help us, and for that I am grateful. That said, you are right: they were stuck up, disrespectful and downright unmilitary. I agree that this is something that we have to deal with, and something that I have talked to every wannabe Ranger cadet that has come through our activities. Rangers are NOT special, they do NOT walk on water, nor are they ES GODS. It is a fun way to study ES and an awesome leadership activity, but neither the program nor it's grads are there to save CAP or the free world and the school staff needs to reinforce that. If anything, the best payoff of programs like this seems to come from training cadets in advanced ES and leadership skills and then sending them home with orders to "go ye forth and preach the gospel of HOO-RA" LOL

One thing to understand is that this is very personal to me. A while back, I found myself defending the Ranger program to our Deputy Group CC who was offended by the name and was saying that we distracted the kids from other more important issues like getting their Mitchell or encampments. He couldn't stop us because it was a wing activity, but I wanted him on our side.I wrote an email and ended up saving is as a webpage because it said a lot about where I'm coming from without having to repeat it over and over.

Incidentally, that young man who had the spiked black mohawk and a penchant for skipping school was just officially appointed as Cadet Commander and is dragging the squadron back up from almost disbanding to the point where we sent out an email saying that Tallahassee will set the pace for the group and wing and it didn't sound all that unbelievable. His brother, who was named as the honor cadet from the Hawk Staff training Squadron went on to attend SUPTFC and was Honor Rookie in band camp.

The Dep Gp CC has since apologized, changed his tune and asked me to help set up a GSAR curriculum for the Group.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I also never attended the Hawk Mountain School for Wayward Cadets, and so I have stayed out of any of the Ranger discussions.  I also stayed out because I have no horror stories to share.  I never saw any HM grads with the negative attitude desribed.  I'm sure some exist, I just never saw any.

But, as far as use of the term "Ranger," I want to point out a fact or two.

The Army doesn't own the term "Ranger."  They actually didn't have any rangers for most of their history.  You've got to go back to the French and Indian Wars, when our Army was a British Colonial force, to find them.  Rogers' Rangers was a force of 5 companies of troops trained to operate independently from a force, to conduct recon-in-force, ambushes, small raids, and generally make life miserable for the French.

After the French and Indian Wars, the Rangers were disbanded, and while we had units that did similar jobs, none were called "Rangers" until World War II.

William Darby suggested an elite raiding unit be organized in the US Army, to be employed like the British Commandos.  He was not comfortable with the term "American Commandos" that was picked up, so he called his force the "Rangers" bringing back the old Rogers Rangers aura.  ("Commando" was also stolen by the British from the South African units that they faced in the Boer War)

After a few postwar fits and starts, (not a whole lot different from our own organizational history in the postwar years) the US Army Ranger program settled into permanence, with rangers being trained to accomplish certain objectives:

1.  To maintain battalion-level assault forces that can strike without extensive external support and seize key terrain objectives in advance of a larger force.

2.  To train officers and NCO's in the tactics of the attack, including movement to contact.

3.  To integrate ranger-trained persons into conventional units to ease interoperability and to provide unit-level trainers in critical infantry tasks.

So, if WE want to have a force that we call "Rangers," and our rangers exist to:

1.  Provide trained rescue teams capable of operating for extended periods in austere conditions without external support.

2.  Provide trained rescue personnel to integrate into conventional CAP rescue units as trainers and cadre, and,

3.  Provide trained rescue personnel to assist CAP leaders at all levels in training Emergency Service force personnel...

Then they are the Rangers! 

And, by the way, Big Mother Blue recognizes them as such in some AFI I read once.

[floridacyclist]

So, if WE want to have a force that we call "Rangers," and our rangers exist to:

1.  Provide trained rescue teams capable of operating for extended periods in austere conditions without external support.

2.  Provide trained rescue personnel to integrate into conventional CAP rescue units as trainers and cadre, and,

3.  Provide trained rescue personnel to assist CAP leaders at all levels in training Emergency Service force personnel...

Then they are the Rangers! 

And, by the way, Big Mother Blue recognizes them as such in some AFI I read once.

Excellent training goal statements Maj Kach. May I steal them? Or did you already steal them from someone else?

[Skyray]

Glad to see the Everglades Ranger School has spread its pollen to Tallahassee.  When I got canned by the Supreme Leader I was teaching fieldcraft in the forerunner of that school at Homestead.  After I was gone, two of my Homestead companions started the school with the blessing and help of Hawk Mountain.  One of my attempts to return found me associated with the Everglades school for a few weeks until the leadership cadre found out what was up and denied my re-entry.  I was pretty impressed with what they were doing and how far they had come with the concept since Homestead.

As for arrogant, has it occurred to anyone that they may not be arrogant?  They just may be that good.  Now we need to teach them humility.

[floridacyclist]

Humility is a good lesson to learn, especially if we want others to invite us to their parties. It is also a good sign of maturity, which we owe it to these youngsters to teach. I have always tried to teach my kids (both my own and those I work with) to let their actions speak for them rather than trying to gain attention through clothes or actively trying to draw it to them.

[mikeylikey]

Is this the official spot to vent my attitudinal hatred for people?  If so......

Thanks floridacyclist for calling me out.  I don't think I attacked you.  I made a comment about Hawk and Rangers, but like I always thought, Hawk Grads and Rangers can't sit still and take some criticism or listen to someone say they don't like the program.  You made the point so very clearly.  Also, I must make it perfectly clear that I did NOT bash you, [redacted by admin].  I can say anything I want about Hawk, Rangers or any other subject.  Don't make this a personal issue, because in the end you only look like an idiot. 

So for everyone to read, I will NEVER say anything more about the Ranger program or Hawk MTN again.  If I do, I am afraid the Rangers may show up at my door, drag me to that MTN and hunt me down like they do to those poor Innocent rabbits.  Please someone whatever happens SAVE THOSE RABBITS!

[Skyray]

You know, it is really hard to eat rabbit once you have made friends with a few.

[mikeylikey]

^  Hahaha.......It would be like taking the family cat outside and making stew.  Can't do it.  How can you eat something so cute and furry.  Tell your five year old son or daughter that they have to eat the easter bunny and see what happens. 

[docspur]

I'm getting "Blue Beret" flashbacks on this.  One of the main reasons we discourage our cadets to go to Blue Beret is the attitudes they have when they come back.  We did send 2 cadets to Hawk this summer...they had a blast one one took top honors.  Waiting to see if an attitude crops up from that but so far so good.

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

[Skyray]

I used to really enjoy duck hunting until my wife a daughter started carrying on about murdering Daffy.

[mikeylikey]

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

I think TP wrote a blanket approval for all of the specail activity patches, tabs, hats, ascots, whistles, boots, belts, shirts, shorts, underwear and challenge coins.  I don't know if it was approved by an "official" approving authority.  There is a policy letter on the subject located that the NHQ site.

[JC004]

There's no reason to trust what others say about the training standards at Hawk, they're online at http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm
...

Black backgrounds, light text...I don't maintain that section, btw.   

[mikeylikey]

^ Colgan......no one will believe you don't maintain that section.  It is a link off the PAWG website.  People are saying "Wow this page is crap, I will send the webmaster a hate email".  In fact, I just sent you one!

[jb512]

I'm getting "Blue Beret" flashbacks on this.  One of the main reasons we discourage our cadets to go to Blue Beret is the attitudes they have when they come back.  We did send 2 cadets to Hawk this summer...they had a blast one one took top honors.  Waiting to see if an attitude crops up from that but so far so good.

Quick question though... Are there any regs concerning the cadets wear of the Ranger tab?  I know that they cannot wear the Blue Beret because it is not considered an actual part of the uniform.

That's an area that I would disagree with most on.  I think that "beret, tab, special patch" competitive, winning attitude is a good thing and something that can be directed.  The blue beret, GSAR, hawk mountain type of person "kicks ass".  If the cadet comes back thinking he's better than everybody and sets himself apart, then put him in his place but If he/she comes back as a role model for other cadets to look up to, you can create that and encourage it.

I say give them all of the tough looking uniform items you can, as long as they earn it.  I've seen the GSARSS and they're the ones I want looking for me if my plane crashes.

[JC004]

^ Colgan......no one will believe you don't maintain that section.  It is a link off the PAWG website.  People are saying "Wow this page is crap, I will send the webmaster a hate email".  In fact, I just sent you one!

but...but...

It JUST got moved there from .gov anyway (to which I don't have access since I'm not the wing POC for .gov)

[Major Carrales]

It is obivous that the term "Ranger," would have its own meaning in CAP.  Now, what should that meaning be?  I think that is the question.

Unless you nix the HM Ranger School, the issue will have to be addressed.  Personally, I think evey Region should have one INTENSE "ecosystem" ADVANCED ENCAMPMENT/ Survival School.  They should be regulated by National Standards with an OPS PLAN that take into account local needs.  Additionally, I think they should have an ES focus...thus, completion of the "RANGER SCHOOL" should see a cadet come away a GT1, or if so qualified, a GTL.

If it does not have that purpose, that good is it?