The whole elitist attitude has burned my backside for some time.  They've lost sight of the original objective.  As has already been alluded to by others in fine fashion, it's not about separating, or presuming to be better, but to get useful training, take it back to others, and spread it around.  If the only reason for going is the bling, then you're there for the wrong reasons, and you're of no additional value to your 'home' team.

At the root of all ES training, there is a core of common requirements and skills.  Then there will be components of legal-related matters that are strictly locally-influenced. While they are a requirement for operating on your 'home turf' they'd be of no use or interest to anyone else, there will also be training elements that relate to the local region or area.  Folks in FL have no reason to learn winter survival unless they plan to make themselves available to augment northern forces.  Folks in MN probably don't have to worry about hot-weather hazards, except maybe two months a year..    Folks here in OK talk about "survival training."  I discourage that term, in deference to "subsistance training" (but I'm open for a better term) because, in most parts of OK, you're not more than 1.5 miles from a road, or a cell phone call away from the cavalry. So, to say "survival" is more than a bit of Rambo-esque overkill.  Doing it as an activity, and possible fun is one thing, but insisting that you have to do it to be competent ground team (here) is poppycock. I went on several ground team missions as a cadet and senior and never needed more than the contents of my butt pack.  Resupply/relief was never that far away.

It's one thing to be gung ho, or just plain enthusiastic.  It's a whole other problem to be so enamored with the idea of a particular subject that your level of training, requirements or expectation leaves the realities of it in your rear view mirror. 

I've only met a handful of PA Rangers in my thirty-plus years here, and lets just say that my impression of them wasn't a positive one, because of their elitist attitude.  As an aside, several years ago I had to deal with a similar attitude problem from some OK cadets and seniors who attended NBB.  But since I'd known Gen Cass since he was my escort on IACE, we were able to work the problem out, and mutually apply a reality check to the non-cooperative locals.

Thanx, DNall and Stonewall for some very reasoned, well-thought out commentary. It's good to have analytical thinkers among us. My compliments..

V/R,

IMO, Hawk needs to reclassed as a local area training course. NESA should be upgraded to a TTT academy where folks are trained to conduct ES training with the appropriate NIMS compliant levels. (which means no GTM3(T), MRO(T), etc attending. ONly experienced qualified personnel) Part of that training would be - How to Teach, aka Instructional Methodologies. That is a skill most CAP members do not develop because too many feel they can teach whatever they've done. That is an attitude that is fairly uncommon in the ES world. To be qualified to instruct or teach in the fire service, one needs to complete some sort of instructor training on the topic they are teaching. For example, I spent a week to become qualified to teach at the haz mat technician level. This was after I was a CO Fire Instructor I. We spent three days covering instructional techniques and methodologies, one day on the Technician material, and one day demonstrating our teaching techniques. Plus homework each day.

Thanks for the kind words, LTC Gadget.

In no way am I intending to turn this into a HMRS bashing thread.  Like I said, I've been to HMRS and learned a few things.  I sense that a majority of the problem comes from the influence of seniors.  After all, cadets are impressionable and will often take after their leaders' example.  If a leader tells a young pup that this is the only way to do it and it is definitely the cool way, well then of course, cadets will follow suit.  I think HMRS offers fine training.  But it should be similar to the Army National Guard's Mountain Warfare School in Vermont; just a school.  They have winter and summer courses making the total school 4 weeks long.  No badges, no special hats; just knowledge and skills to take back to the unit and share with your cohorts.

I am skeptical of Florida's formation of the wing ranger program.  CAP already has a ground search and rescue program and standards to boot.  What is the point of a ranger program?  Are there any "CAP Rangers" that can explain the mission, the goal of a CAP Ranger Program?

For 15 years in National Capital Wing we trained collectively as a wing since we were smaller than some groups in CAP.  Our training was top notch and exceeded the old system's standards of you're a GTM(T), participate in 2 practice missions, get your ROP card and First Aid card and you'll be qualified.  We took it up a few notches and added some wing level testing and a few requirements.  We trained realistically.  We had annual training events like WINTEX, MOUNTEX and TAC COMEX.  All focusing around specific tasks.  Winter SAR operations, Mountain operations, Tactical Communicaitons, all of which worked closely with our wing's air crews.  We trained in a joint environment because that's how we operated.  We did our "survival training", but that was more for morale and "hooah" training than it was necessary.  It always motivates people to do some extra training outside the realm of standard CAP ground ops.  Keeps things interesting and can always be used in the future.  I would stack any one of my past cadet ground team members against any "specialized ranger" cadet.  Because chances are we trained similarly, if not moreso.  The only difference was that we didn't have a need for a special title other than "GROUND TEAM MEMBER".

well ill throw my 2 cents worth into the i mess. 
As many of you know I hold a few ES qualifications, and am constantly looking for ways to learn, and advance my understanding of "Rescue".  I approached the Hawk mountain cadre, and explained my situation.  I posed questions about attending Hawk, and was told not to come.  The officer in question informed me that they didn't want people with my knowledge to attend.  I was told that experienced ground pounders were discouraged because they undermined the program. 

In spite of this i have a high regard for PA rangers, and encourage members to attend the activity.

Quote from: NIN on April 16, 2007, 02:30:11 AM
If you took away the "Ranger Bling" ... do you think that would:

a) increase the people training at the places (Hawk Mtn, NESA, wing-level "ranger" courses) that would be needed to grant this "uber qualification";

or

b)  decrease the number of people training at the places that would be needed to grant this "uber qualfication."

Clearly, but then the point he was making is that there are finite resources. If these training programs are allowed to exist, much less be promoted on a large scale, then it causes fewer people to be qualified to the basic level. That instead we should direct those resources to getting as many people as possible qual'd to that baseline level rather than creating disruptive people that are trained for things that they will never be called on to do.

Quote from: arajca on April 16, 2007, 03:34:03 AM
IMO, Hawk needs to reclassed as a local area training course. NESA should be upgraded to a TTT academy where folks are trained to conduct ES training with the appropriate NIMS compliant levels.

Now that's a thought.

Quote from: Stonewall on April 16, 2007, 04:07:37 AM
Thanks for the kind words, LTC Gadget.

second.

1. DO NOT compare the US Army Rangers to CAP Rangers. It's like comparing US Army Rangers to Park Rangers. Totally different concepts, training, and job descriptions. Same name... different things.

2. Do not confuse the attitude of your individual cadets with the program. The program gives training to some cadets and officers that other cadets and officers do not possess. It is a difficult program and a right of passage for many. It is elite because of the members that have gone through it, not because you say so.

3. If you have a cadet who is a show-off, treat him as such. Stop blaming one activity or another for actions of your members. Place the responsibility squarely on the malfunctioning member. If they went through Hawk Mountain, they can handle the weight. Really, all this program does is give people skill sets. Mountain Search and Rescue skill sets. Most CAP members do not possess such skill sets. That's why some come back thinking they're hot stuff. It's your job as a mentor to these cadets and officers to remind them that their actions after coming back have as much affect on how they're perceived as their actions while in the school.
4. As a unit commander you may unauthorize the wear of non-standard CAP uniforms at your meetings. Sure, they'd still be authorized to wear it at Group/Wing/Region/National activities, but your squadron would be back to normal. Remember, you can restrict authorized items. You just can't authorize items that are specifically unauthorized.

As far as comparisons, they did that, not us. They chose to emulate Army Ranger training in many ways with it tailored to the CAP mission & experience. It's a fair comparison in some ways. They are attempting to create a motivational leadership program that teaches special & advanced skills which students take back to their units to share with others.

With respect, they go away fine & come back messed up with an attitude they're better than those around them & no one else - peer, superior, or subordinate - has the right to tell them what to do anymore on any subject ever. It is the program that made them act like that, or specifically the attitude/philosophy of the program & the quality control that occurs there - as far as I can tell anyway. It's only been one or two individuals out of a bunch that have NOT come back like that.

I personally think the underlying concept of HMRS is good, and the facilities are useful, but I think the program has long ago lost its way & needs to be reigned back into the reality of what we need done in CAP.

Hawk teaches mountain rescue skills you say. So what good is that in Kansas? Florida has a Ranger school in the Everglades where mountains are 30 feet tall. What use is mountain rescue in the everglades where an entirely different SAR program is needed. Hawk has the Winter training in tempratures that are below freezing, while in Florida people are going to the beach to swim. What Hawk provides is a training program that is useless in most areas of the country.
As to all the bling, it's fine while AT Hawk, but does produce elitest attitudes when the cadet or senior returns to a home Squadron. Why should cadet Doe wear the silly silver whistle, or ascot or hat or colorful t-shirt when everyone else in the Squadron is in the 39-1 authorized standard uniform? The idea is uniformity, and the added bling means a Hawk grad stands out like a sore thumb and does nothing to improve local SAR capability.
Florida Wing had a Ranger program BEFORE Hawk existed. The only bling was the standard Army Ranger tab worn above the Wing patch. It also produced an elitest attitude among cadets and seniors and the Wing Commander killed it since it did nothing to improves SAR capability overall throughout the Wing. It was replaced by a  SAR training program specific to Florida problems. When the majority of you Wing is urban, swamp or piney woods, what do you need to know about mountain rescue?
Each Wing has different geographical areas and problems that Hawk doesn't consider.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 07:14:17 AM
2. Do not confuse the attitude of your individual cadets with the program. The program gives training to some cadets and officers that other cadets and officers do not possess. It is a difficult program and a right of passage for many. It is elite because of the members that have gone through it, not because you say so.

My "ranger" cadet doesn't have an attitude, they just wear all the garb.  However, I think it's 90% of every "Rangers'" attitude.  Growing up as a cadet in Florida I never heard of HMRS.  It wasn't until I got up closer to Hawk that I ran across a cadet who had a red "RANGER" tab on his BDUs.  The moment he opened his mouth and started spouting off crap about being elite, etc., I knew I wouldn't be an advocate of the program.  So I had to go for myself.  Yep, nothing too tough or worthy of being "elite".  Just a school with some decent training that, in my mind, doesn't warrant anything special.

"RIGHT OF PASSAGE" you say?  Passage into what?  It is elite because of the members have gone through it?  I don't even understand what you're saying.  It isn't elite.  It's ground SAR training on a mountain, which, as I have said, is good training.  It is the attitude along with the whole mystique of being called a "Ranger".

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 07:14:17 AM3.  If they went through Hawk Mountain, they can handle the weight.

Wow, you really think highly of these Rangers.  As if HMRS creates manly men who can handle anything. 

Your response is exactly what I would expect from an advocate of the ranger program.  All defensive and bullying up to act hard corps.  I have trained hundreds of people from local units to the national level, in everything from first aid to winter survival.  I would say I have enough experience to form an educated opinion, and based on my experience, I disagree with the mindset that the ranger program instills in CAP's cadets.  If ranger school did its job, these people would not just learn SAR skills, but skills of being a humble professional; a modest "expert" in the art of search and rescue who doesn't need 5 additional badges of hooahness to add to their uniform, but demonstrate their newly found skills by sharing their knowledge with their fellow members. 

One final thing.  If they're going to have a special uniform item, at least it could look good.  I mean, honestly, does anyone truly think the white pistol belt, ascot and whistle looks good?  Forget professional, I mean just plain looks.  I think it looks horrible.  Why not go with what everyone wants to wear, a beret?  I'd still argue against it, but at least a beret looks good.

I am an advocate of the school. I do believe it gives cadets and officers valuable skills in SAR and survival. I do believe that it is elite for CAP. I do believe that your cadets have an attitude (otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining). I do think you need to lighten up and understand that cadets are teenagers and at their point in life they don't have much to be proud of aside from activities such as HM. As teenagers, they are prone to wear all the crazy garb that comes with this membership in the HM Rangers and not to just quietly offer their newly gained expertise. It is up to you, as their leader to guide them to the proper way of using the skills and self-confidence. It is up to you to remind these cadets that they may have been to an elite school, but they are themselves not elite. It's up to you to set one standard for all your cadets and yes, I think they can handle responsibility if they can handle bragging about themselves being hot stuff. In the end, unauthorize the wear of special uniform items and relax.

Now the squadron where I served as a leadership officer had cadet graduates of Hawk Mountain. None of them displayed the ego or uniform items you speak of because they knew better. They knew it wouldn't be tolerated. Today, my group HQ is co-located with that squadron and we had another cadet who was a grad of Hawk Mountain... he just shipped out to become a Marine a few months ago, but the only thing he wore was a Hawk Mountain LL patch. No whistle, no pistol belt, just patch. Why? Because that's the environment we set up for our cadets. Because that's how our officers act and that's how we demand our cadets act as well.

Please, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

The ones I've seen are the ones that have all the attitude. As you say they are teenagers, and they shouldn't be running around thinking they are better than other cadets. Humble pride in ones accomplishments is one thing, but it gets disruptive & demotivational when they hold it over the heads of others.

Now, I've never been to HM, been a while since I've been to the state, but I got more actual SaR experience than most people you're going to find, and I been to military courses that cover all the same material with no bling to show for it.

I do correct the behavior when it's displayed, but generally that is very hard on the cadet. They are taught at Hawk to have all this pride & esprit, taught that  they are being let into a limited fraternity that makes them special. Then they come back having taken those lessons as teens will & have to be deprogrammed. In that process they either feel like we are attakcing them, or they understand our position & feel like the whole effort at Hawk was wasted & a betrayal. It's just all around bad.

I have no doubt they offer some decent training, but they need to get control of tehmselves & reign that in. It needs to be dropped as a NCSA, and each wing needs its own terrain specific program that teaches to NIMS WSAR standards.

Quote from: afgeo4 on April 16, 2007, 02:40:18 PM
Now the squadron where I served as a leadership officer had cadet graduates of Hawk Mountain. None of them displayed the ego or uniform items you speak of because they knew better. They knew it wouldn't be tolerated. Today, my group HQ is co-located with that squadron and we had another cadet who was a grad of Hawk Mountain... he just shipped out to become a Marine a few months ago, but the only thing he wore was a Hawk Mountain LL patch. No whistle, no pistol belt, just patch. Why? Because that's the environment we set up for our cadets. Because that's how our officers act and that's how we demand our cadets act as well.

Please, stop being the "parent who blames the school for bad behavior of his/her children". You are where the buck has to stop. The school is a school, not the teenager tamer. That's your job if you are the cadet programs officer.

hmmm....I don't think there is much wearing of the HMRS Garb now, but that is being changed.  In fact it was changed, and the change letter has just not yet been produced.  It will authorize the web belt, tabs, scarf, whistle and white boot laces.  It is coming, don't be surprised when you start to see it!

I am not  going to support your line of reasoning that the SQDs should be the line of defense on combating the results of HMRS.  It is HMRS that needs to change SOP, not me!
It would be real easy to get rid of everything "ranger" related there.  Keep the training, but stop the mental push that begins on day one to refer to everyone as Rangers.  

How many students wash out of Hawk? As I see it, your "elite" program is open to any CAP member with the time and cash to attend, just like any NCSA. Hardly a way to qualify as an "elite" program.

I realize the OP didn't mean for this thread to become a Hawk-bashing thread, but when the Hawk advocates hold it up as the be-all, end-all of CAP SAR training, they open it up to other opinions and experiences.

afgeo4, about your cadet who didn't wear the Hawk bling except for the patch, you overlook the fact that it was not authorized until last August, so your cadet simply may not have gotten into the habit of wearing it and may not have wanted to spend the money on it. An equally valid reason for not wering it.

Colorado at one time had a "Ranger" corps. it was disbanded when the rangers' attitudes became disruptive and contrary to the functioning of the wing. FWIH, several who got into GBD type positions refused to let nonrangers serve as ground teams because they weren't rangers.

Thought I would add my two cents - as I will try not to ramble.

Normally those against a Ranger type program are those who are not and cannot.  Sorry to generalize.

Even in the active military there have been periods that Ranger, SF, etc type units have been disbanded because they were seen as elitists.  For example, after WWII, Korean War, Vietnam...  It is weird that during periods of conflict were special skill and a highly trained soldier is needed - these type of units flourish.

If anyone out there thinks that you average soldier can find their way to anything besides the PX in the active army, they are way off base.  I would guess something similar exists in CAP.  Now to my point.

Are Ranger type programs useful - absolutely as long as they are organized and lead correctly.  The US Army Ranger School is less a field craft school than it is a leadership school - this is what you are evaluated on and must pass - patrols - which means the ability to lead a team and accomplish a mission.  Are the graduates of Ranger School a more elite soldier than those that are not, generally.  Do they have a swagger - you bet.  Do the ones that follow on the a Ranger Battalion think they are a more elite soldier - absolutely.  Are they - without question.

When you see a young ranger around base - you can tell, in our out of uniform.  It is obvious.  Are they abrasive about it - no, normally they are humble and usually travel in their own groups.  They came into the military for just the experience.

Now who does this relate to CAP.  My guess is that those who go to the PA Ranger training are looking for something more - a more military, type of experience.  Great for them - I think it is a great idea.  If this is more of a SAR type training, why not make it a GTM type qualification and change the name.  If it is a Leadership type training, and there is a big difference on how you should be evaluated - then call it a Ranger Course.  If everyone passes, it is not a Ranger Type course. 

If the PA Ranger course is producing graduates that have a swagger, and come back and provide a real value to their squadrons - I applaud.  If they are coming back with a better than though attitude, the cadre at the School are obviously a bunch of wannabees.

Here is my final thought.  This type of training normally caters to a certain type of individual that any organization would want - people of want to be challenged, lead, and sometimes fail.  It seems like there are enough of former SOCOM guys in CAP that we could come together as a committee and design a program that will produce Master GTMers - Rangers that can spread throughout the CAP Squadrons and deliver real professional training and leadership.  I would recommend we model it after the US Army Ranger Program, completed in phases at different locations, with different terrain and objectives and at the end of the course you would have some real super stars.

Just a thought.

K

^ No, no and NO!  First, in my generalization, those against the Ranger Program are those that CAN and HAVE.  I personally have, I know a few others that have posted have been there also, not to mention the various schools we have attended in the Military.  Second, there are some high speed soldiers that are not special forces, rangers, etc. that will run circles around those that attended those schools. 

HOWEVER, lets not put the CAP ranger program in any type of comparison to the military schools that are called the same!  There can be NO comparison!

As for the type of person who attends HMRS.....it is usually the type that needs to be better than his peers, needs to know more, and have something they can "whip" out if challenged to a pissing contest. 

My biggest gripe, that I have had for the time I have been working in PAWG, and have always brought up at the Wing Staff Meetings is the issue with how much funding the program gets and the type of person the program produces.  A few years back the school was almost shut down, if it were not for the one person at NHQ that had attended the school as a cadet and felt some type of nostalgia.  The plan was to shut down HMRS for one year and create a NER SAR school, without the Ranger crap.  Too bad, because it would have been a good program!

I'd have top agree with mikelylikely. Most of the folks against Ranger programs in CAP are against them because of their experienes with the folks who have completed the programs - generally bad. I'm not saying they all are, but there are a lot who come back with a counter-productive attitude.

Any plan, course, etc - no matter how great it is - poorly executed produces poor results.  On the other hand, I believe there is a place for a course like this - it has to be well run, designed to promote leadership, and produce the desired results.

Quote from: Rangersigo on April 16, 2007, 06:57:26 PM
Any plan, course, etc - no matter how great it is - poorly executed produces poor results.  On the other hand, I believe there is a place for a course like this - it has to be well run, designed to promote leadership, and produce the desired results.

Therein lies the problem with Hawk. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on being well run and designed to promote leadership, but unless the desired result is to produce a bunch of egotistical [censored]s, it fails.

Thus, using your criteria, Hawk has no place in CAP.

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 16, 2007, 06:32:21 PM
My biggest gripe, that I have had for the time I have been working in PAWG, and have always brought up at the Wing Staff Meetings is the issue with how much funding the program gets and the type of person the program produces.  A few years back the school was almost shut down, if it were not for the one person at NHQ that had attended the school as a cadet and felt some type of nostalgia.  The plan was to shut down HMRS for one year and create a NER SAR school, without the Ranger crap.  Too bad, because it would have been a good program!

You keep alluding to being 'in the know' and attending PAWG staff meetings, etc. etc..

It would seem that you're starting to approach 'put up or shut up' time in re: your identity v. your credibility. The only reason I'm bringing this up here is because you failed to respond to your previously-requested PM.