Are you ready for Ground Team fitness standards?

[RiverAux]

Since SARDAK has recently revived the issue of national SAR standards, I thought it might be timely to remind folks that when those are adopted they are most likely going to require that CAP adopt some sort of fitness standards for its ground teams.  There are a couple of threads about that issue that you may want to search for. 

However, even though we don't have any idea what such a standard may be, I think we can assume that it will be somewhat reasonable and won't require CAP GT members to do anything too crazy.  (My best guess is that it will be some sort of minimum time to hike a certain distance while carrying some amount of weight). 

So, I wonder how many of our current ground pounders are likely to meet a reasonable fitness standard.  Obviously, this would be speculation since we don't know the standard, but most people have a good idea of their level of fitness, so give it your best guess.

[NCRblues]

I voted confident that I could with my level but I think another one needs to be added. "Can but wont if fitness levels mandated"

[BillB]

A PT standard won't answer the problems of CAP GT. Many ground teams carry little extra equipment in many areas of the country. Why carry a 72 hour pack when the area searched has paved roads every few miles and a base that is 10 miles or so away from a search area. There would have to be different standards depending on the geography of the SAR area. Much of the country is flat and no need to have a PT program that requires the ability to be able to climb mountains. How can you say walk X miles if part of those miles are swamp land? Or, if the SAR effort is in an urban area does a PT standard hat requires chin-ups or push ups meet a physical need for SAR?

[RiverAux]

I voted confident that I could with my level but I think another one needs to be added. "Can but wont if fitness levels mandated"

Done though that option makes no sense to me. 

Bill, we've got other threads discussing what a standard should be...

[NCRblues]

now i want to change my vote 
This is the way I view it, I'm about to get off active duty, I have done my fair share of pt test and maintained the standards I was told to, but now I want to relax. Don't really want someone else telling me run/pushup/sit-up to play ball. Just my personnel view point.

[Pumbaa]

I would think as long as you can walk without having a heart attack, that should be good enough....

Really, in terms of a GT search how much fitness, other than basic would you really need? GT's will not be running through the woods, they wont be hauling 100lbs back packs, they won't be going 50 miles into the bush for a month at a time.

Lets be realistic.  GT is not an aerobic sport.

Basic health, minimal fitness (ie beyond couch potato) is all that is required.

[RiverAux]

If you want to debate whether or not there should be standards or what they should be, go here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1388.0

The assumption of this thread is that there WILL be a standard.

[arajca]

Until we know what the standard is, how do we know whether we can meet it?

Walk 1.5 miles carrying a 25 lb pack in 45 minutes on level ground is vastly different from travel 3 miles carrying a 50lb pack in one hour which also differs from a standard with calesethics.

One I can meet, one I can't. So, how do I vote?

[RiverAux]

As I said use your best judgement as to the current fitness.

[Flying Pig]

When I was on SWAT, for a while, everyone on the team just stayed in top shape on their own.  We got a new commander who mandated a quarterly PT test.  The association said, OK, if your going to make PT a requirement, the department is going to pay for our gym memberships.  So they did.  I got the top package at the local gym and was paid up to 4 hrs OT per week to sign in at the gym and work out.    :clap:

Not that we have that ability in CAP...but still a nice story.

[GroundPounder73]

If you want to debate whether or not there should be standards or what they should be, go here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1388.0

The assumption of this thread is that there WILL be a standard.

Theres that naughty word "assumption." Why not chose to assume that there will be NO standard. Ive got GT SAR experience in harsh conditions and am not in perfect condition and have never had an MI while tracking. This seems to fall into the "lets do as many things as we can to alienate members and potential members" file. Also arent there GT members who dont hump through the rough stuff? Going to make someone in commo who is great with what he does lose 60 pounds so he fits in his chair better? Come on guys. I know Im a newb here and not in CAP yet, but even though CAP is loosely (and seeming to be moreloosely all the time ) attached the USAF, lets recognize what we are dealing wthi which is real peopple wh are willing to get up in teh middle of the night to do the good work. Now you want a retired high school teacher to be able to walk a mile in a fxed time carrying a ruck. BLah!

[GroundPounder73]

When I was on SWAT, for a while, everyone on the team just stayed in top shape on their own.  We got a new commander who mandated a quarterly PT test.  The association said, OK, if your going to make PT a requirement, the department is going to pay for our gym memberships.  So they did.  I got the top package at the local gym and was paid up to 4 hrs OT per week to sign in at the gym and work out.    :clap:

Not that we have that ability in CAP...but still a nice story.

Very nice story. Will I get my gym membership and points toward completion of levels when I join up. Lets face it. You can only expect so much out of unpaid vollies and then you need to start throwing some more perks and stop taking things away from them, like the whites and blues. Again Im a non member yet and will take my lumps, but sounds like NHQ needs an over the top CAP slap.

[Eclipse]

Since SARDAK has recently revived the issue of national SAR standards, I thought it might be timely to remind folks that when those are adopted they are most likely going to require that CAP adopt some sort of fitness standards for its ground teams.

Doubt it.

CAP will most likely fit what they actually do into some sort of the standard not the other way around.

Until and unless there is a monetary reward (i.e. funding) tied to that standard, there's no reason to go with it. The vast majority of what CAP does is no more taxing than the average person encounters on a regular camping trip or a picnic.

Which is the point.

[RiverAux]

Why not chose to assume that there will be NO standard.

Because the draft version SAYS that there will be a standard (though it doesn't say what it will be).  Don't like the assumption, don't play the game. 

[GroundPounder73]

The terms "draft version" and "assumption" in the same sentence make me nervous. I my experience those dont go together.

[Levi]

I would love to try to accomodate any requirement. But I am nearly 60 years old, and rated at 100% permanent and total by the VA due to line-of-duty injuries years ago. I can walk and see, and I believe that I could be useful in some way to a ground team in many search and rescue situations. I would like to train and participate if I can. I believe that I know enough about my own restrictions to take myself out of service if that is warranted.

[wuzafuzz]

Any idea what the proposed standards are so we can cast a halfway intelligent vote?

While I agree basic fitness is needed for GT work, one size fits all standards will be next to useless.  Seriously, a standard written to ensure success on flat terrain at 60 feet above sea level isn't even a starting point for 8,000 feet in the Rockies.  Beyond that, each member should use their judgement and evaluate whether they are up to the task for the expected search area. 

As long as someone is fit enough to engage in reasonably foreseeable CAP missions in their wing or group, that's all you need.  We don't necessarily need to keep up with high speed low drag Mountain Rescue teams.

Me?  I didn't vote yet.  However I just spent two days on GT training, stomping around the snow, ravines, and some short climbs up trails at 8,000 ft plus.  I know I could pass reasonable standards.  I also know my goofy knee and lungs will protest wildly when racing teenage GT's up a steep trail on hasty search at 9,000 feet.  A reasonable pace?  Sure.  At my age I was simply glad to survive and enjoy activities that wore out cadets younger than my kids.   

[RiverAux]

Any idea what the proposed standards are so we can cast a halfway intelligent vote?

Not really, but the draft mention a few organization's standards that are basically what I mentioned earlier -- a timed walk event carrying a backpack.  Check out the thread I cited earlier for the details on them. 

[Rotorhead]

This seems to fall into the "lets do as many things as we can to alienate members and potential members" file.

...which also coincides with the "better training" and "better qualified members" file.

I'd rather have fewer members in good shape and with real-world quals than more members who get all huffy when they're told this isn't playtime and threaten to quit when they have to meet standards.

[Rodriguez]

I think as far as cadets are concerned there should be a standard. All of the Ranger grades have a physical requirement. I mean as usual I think exceptions should be made for certain people but overall I think its a good idea.

[jimmydeanno]

True story...

At a SAREX recently, we had a lost group of hikers scenario.  One of our ground teams was assigned the task of being the "victims."  They were supposed to hike up a 4,100 foot mountain and cross the ridge to another peak (4,400 feet).  In all it was supposed to be a distance of approximately 5 miles in each direction.

This team was then supposed to camp out overnight (they assumed it would take some time to be found), then the next morning do an aerial search of the area.

I was the GTL for the team that was supposed to do interrogations and find clues that would indicate where they were, do the search, etc. 

The first team left to get lost.  My team waited for 4 hours for deployment so they could have an adequate head start.  When we started it was around noon, the other team had a 4 hour head start.  We went around the area they were thought to have been last seen, did about 10 different interrogations (hiker's visitor center, AMC volunteers, forestry service guys, etc).  We had a random hiker that happened to have completed the loop they were on note they thought they might have seen them earlier that day, about 0900.

So, we drove to the trailhead this hiker reported seeing them on.  As we pulled up, we got a radio call from the "lost team" citing that they had a non-emergency medical issue.  I responded that we were en route and asked for their location.  The GTL noted they were about 1.5 hours up the trail (to me that means about 3 miles). 

In 10 minutes we reached the team, no more than 2/10s of a mile up the trail.  The GTL simply couldn't go any further because he was out of shape.  He noted that his legs were burning, he was sweating profusely and was already exhausted.

So, our team ended up hiking the mountain to the location they were supposed to camp at, stayed overnight and became the targets for the aircrew the next morning.

Had this been an actual mission, our ground team would have failed our organization and the victims they were intended to rescue.  Someone's personal assessment of their physical fitness level obviously didn't meet what the demands of the job were.

It's not that I don't want people to play, but when it comes to actual GT work, a level of physical fitness is required - especially in my area.  If you are 100% disabled, overweight or just don't feel like keeping yourself in shape you are going to be of no use to a team that needs to do ground team stuff.

If you are assigned to a team, get dispatched and when you get to an area that exceeds your physical limitations because you might actually have to walk, what is the rest of the team supposed to do?  Have you sit in the van and keep the seat warm?  Now you leave your team without another person to help carry that litter, render aid, etc. 

A ground team can not just start slicing off skill sets along the way.  They can't lose their L-PER guy because he can't walk through the woods.  They can't lose the guy that knows how to work with the dog teams because they aren't fit enough to go where the dog team goes.

In my wing, of the 12 or so GTLs we have I would honestly say that only 2 are physically capable of actually performing the physical aspect of GT.  Yes, they are technically proficient in the rest of the areas, but when it comes down to it, they would not be able to do the job in an actual emergency.

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

just sayin'

[Levi]

Good points, all. And well put.

[Pingree1492]

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

I also have "horror stories" of folks not physically able to hike in the mountains out on Ground Teams.  They all end badly, especially for the person out of shape.  You don't have to be a track star, but if you're not in shape to be going up into the mountains and through treacherous terrain, then you have no business being on a ground team.  In my experience, these people are worse than being a little short handed, as they actually detract from mission performance.

I would love to try to accommodate any requirement. But I am nearly 60 years old, and rated at 100% permanent and total by the VA due to line-of-duty injuries years ago. I can walk and see, and I believe that I could be useful in some way to a ground team in many search and rescue situations. I would like to train and participate if I can. I believe that I know enough about my own restrictions to take myself out of service if that is warranted.

While my above comments may seem harsh, there is certainly a place for people like you sir in Ground Operations.  While I would never take you into the woods with a team, I would certainly welcome any skills and experiences you would bring to the table in an Urban DF Setting.  For us in CO, this is almost everything east of the Front Range.  In other wings, it's practically everything in the entire state.

Also, people that can't meet a physical fitness standard to go out on full-up ground teams can still provide incredibly valuable services to those ground teams.  I was on a mission last year where we had a GTL/GBD that knew he couldn't go out and perform on a field team in the terrain we were searching, so he acted as a driver for teams, as well as acting as a communications relay between us in the field, and the people at the Incident Command Post.  Serving in this function was incredibly valuable to us in the field, and allowed us to actually do our jobs searching, instead of struggling to maintain comm all day.

[Eclipse]

Random horror stories do not indict a system, or validate it.

We can all tell tall tales of ground and aircrews who performed below expectations, and conversely
people who look like they are on deaths door who run rings around cadets.

Any standards adopted need to focus on the actual missions CAP performs, not some blue-sky ranger missions we may or may not get. 

If some wings get more rugged missions, so be it, they can have additional requirements but for the majority of us, a brisk with a hip sack is about as rugged as we ever get.  Our staple missions these days is far from wilderness SAR in the mountains.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think as far as cadets are concerned there should be a standard. All of the Ranger grades have a physical requirement. I mean as usual I think exceptions should be made for certain people but overall I think its a good idea.

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

[Hawk200]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

[RiverAux]

jimmy, to tell the  truth I am pretty impressed that your wing even attempted that good of a ground team scenario -- congrats on that even though it didn't work out. 

Random horror stories do not indict a system, or validate it.

That story was random, but along with it was his assessment of the actual capabilities of the GTLs in his wing. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

[PHall]

True story...

At a SAREX recently, we had a lost group of hikers scenario.  One of our ground teams was assigned the task of being the "victims."  They were supposed to hike up a 4,100 foot mountain and cross the ridge to another peak (4,400 feet).  In all it was supposed to be a distance of approximately 5 miles in each direction.

This team was then supposed to camp out overnight (they assumed it would take some time to be found), then the next morning do an aerial search of the area.

I was the GTL for the team that was supposed to do interrogations and find clues that would indicate where they were, do the search, etc. 

The first team left to get lost.  My team waited for 4 hours for deployment so they could have an adequate head start.  When we started it was around noon, the other team had a 4 hour head start.  We went around the area they were thought to have been last seen, did about 10 different interrogations (hiker's visitor center, AMC volunteers, forestry service guys, etc).  We had a random hiker that happened to have completed the loop they were on note they thought they might have seen them earlier that day, about 0900.

So, we drove to the trailhead this hiker reported seeing them on.  As we pulled up, we got a radio call from the "lost team" citing that they had a non-emergency medical issue.  I responded that we were en route and asked for their location.  The GTL noted they were about 1.5 hours up the trail (to me that means about 3 miles). 

In 10 minutes we reached the team, no more than 2/10s of a mile up the trail.  The GTL simply couldn't go any further because he was out of shape.  He noted that his legs were burning, he was sweating profusely and was already exhausted.

So, our team ended up hiking the mountain to the location they were supposed to camp at, stayed overnight and became the targets for the aircrew the next morning.

Had this been an actual mission, our ground team would have failed our organization and the victims they were intended to rescue.  Someone's personal assessment of their physical fitness level obviously didn't meet what the demands of the job were.

It's not that I don't want people to play, but when it comes to actual GT work, a level of physical fitness is required - especially in my area.  If you are 100% disabled, overweight or just don't feel like keeping yourself in shape you are going to be of no use to a team that needs to do ground team stuff.

If you are assigned to a team, get dispatched and when you get to an area that exceeds your physical limitations because you might actually have to walk, what is the rest of the team supposed to do?  Have you sit in the van and keep the seat warm?  Now you leave your team without another person to help carry that litter, render aid, etc. 

A ground team can not just start slicing off skill sets along the way.  They can't lose their L-PER guy because he can't walk through the woods.  They can't lose the guy that knows how to work with the dog teams because they aren't fit enough to go where the dog team goes.

In my wing, of the 12 or so GTLs we have I would honestly say that only 2 are physically capable of actually performing the physical aspect of GT.  Yes, they are technically proficient in the rest of the areas, but when it comes down to it, they would not be able to do the job in an actual emergency.

I am all for physical standards for GTM-3, GTM-2, GTM-1 and GTL.  I think the integrity of the teams depends on it.  I think the lives of our victims depend on it.  I think the safety of our own teams depend on it.

Many areas of the country are fine with UDF qualifications.  Get in the van, drive to the airport, walk to the ramp, shut off the ELT.  But, for what the GT qualifications are designed for (areas like mine, with mountains, hills, woods, ravines, weather, etc) you need a certain level of fitness greater than "be able to walk without having a heart attack."

just sayin'

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

This stuff is nice to do, but, are we really training for the missions we actually do these days?

[RiverAux]

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

So, all your aircraft search missions end with the ground team driving right up to them in their van?  Keep in mind that we're talking about ground teams, not DF teams...

[jimmydeanno]

And when was the last time your Wing had an actual mission  that required a Ground Team to hike in to the search area?

This stuff is nice to do, but, are we really training for the missions we actually do these days?

Missing hikers, hunters, are pretty common in these parts.  I can point to probably 18 missing people in the last year.  CAP doesn't get called for all of them, but there have been a few in the last few years that we've assisted with.  So yes, we do train for things that we actually do or could get called for.

Most of our state is covered in trees and mountains. The entire state population is only 1.3 million with 80% of those living in 5 cities. Heck, nearly half the state is protected national/state forest.  Chances are, you're going into the woods for any CAP related mission - unless the target is sitting at the airport.  If you want a good DF reading, you're going to have to climb a hill.

My point is that CAP has UDF and GT qualifications separated for a reason.  If you live in an urban area where a credit card and a cell phone are all you need, then you should have the UDF rating.  If you live in a rural area with mountains, etc - chances are that if you get called out you're going to have to do something in that sort of terrain.

As a GTL, I would expect that someone showing up with a GTM-X qualification would be physically capable of doing the mission, not just someone who decided it would be cool to have the qual and get the badge.  I know that I can hike for 20+ miles with my gear.  I know that the cadets that are GTM-X qualified in my unit can hike for miles with their gear.  I don't know what the physical capabilities of some random person that gets assigned to my GT is.  Are we going to have to turn around 1/10 of a mile from the van?  At least a standard fitness level would help in determining that.

[tribalelder]

A small number of our brother-members are focused on the trappings of CAP-the cards, the titles, the snazzy blue suit, etc.  instead of CAP's  missions.  I've seen a GTL with handicap parking placard-his, not his spouse's. mother's or childs.  I've had a one-eyed observer (who was never to my knowledge current) complain to wing and region when I wouldn't  get him added to the CN list-he really wanted that card. 

Fitness standards are a great idea, but legitimate, honest self-assessment would be better.  There are 2 things that caused me to let my GTL lapse, and the biggest one was a fitness-for-duty issue - a bad shoulder.  I can walk several miles, I routinely cycle ten, but I have no business taking on an assignment that could include an extended litter carry. I didn't feel it was appropriate to stay 'on the list' when I knew I wasn't up to one of the reasonably possible physical demands. 

[davedove]

Gee, I thought the reason we let cadets on ground teams was so we seniors could stay in the van with the doughnuts.

[Rodriguez]

Please enlighten me as to what a Ranger grade is. Is that something the U.S. Army Rangers have?

http://www.pawingcap.com/hawk/standardsandeval.htm

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

[arajca]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

Quite likely. After all, it you aren't in PAWG, and maybe FLWG, there generally aren't any. The few that may be around outside of those areas are an insignificant number.

[NCRblues]

^ Plus many uh "rangers" are more or less ignored because of the attitude that seems to come from the "ranger" schools, but i wont start down that long road....

[Rodriguez]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

Quite likely. After all, it you aren't in PAWG, and maybe FLWG, there generally aren't any. The few that may be around outside of those areas are an insignificant number.

True, cant argue with that. Which is pretty unfortunate but that's a whole other story. As for the "Attitude" of a ranger or what comes out of the schools, Unfortunately its a subject that honestly cant be touched upon on any forum. And yea, I'm not gonna go there either.

But overall I think we could all benefit from a little fitness standards. And I'm not suggesting some ridiculous number or anything. Actually what would be nice is maybe a simple Physical that any local physician can administer. Just to make sure no ones gonna have a stroke or something avoidable like that.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

I actually know what CAP Rangers are - wish I haven't since around 2003. My comment was somewhat of a tongue in cheek.  CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever. That's also why Pawger is a noun where I come from. 

^ Plus many uh "rangers" are more or less ignored because of the attitude that seems to come from the "ranger" schools, but i wont start down that long road....

^^^ We may be not traveling down the same road, eh?

[N Harmon]

CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever.

Too late. Our SQTR system more or less came from the ranger system.

[Eclipse]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade.

There is no such grade within the CAP program.

What you are likely referring to is an NCSA run in (I believe but am not sure) the Poconos that does some SAR training and the like.  Its a pretty good adventure camp, but doesn't confer any special CAP ratings.

A graduate of that program is no more (or less) qualified to perform CAP ES missions than any other GTM in the program.

[lordmonar]

CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever.

Too late. Our SQTR system more or less came from the ranger system.

Not to mention the whole GTM task guide and reference material was wholely lifted from the Ranger Program.

[Eclipse]

CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever.

Too late. Our SQTR system more or less came from the ranger system.

Not to mention the whole GTM task guide and reference material was wholely lifted from the Ranger Program.

I actually have one of the original Ranger Guides...

[Майор Хаткевич]

CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever.

Too late. Our SQTR system more or less came from the ranger system.

Not to mention the whole GTM task guide and reference material was wholely lifted from the Ranger Program.

You are talking program material that was developed from sound ideas. I'm talking what I have seen in the last 7 years as a CAP member come off that mountain and back to my area.

[N Harmon]

You are talking program material that was developed from sound ideas. I'm talking what I have seen in the last 7 years as a CAP member come off that mountain and back to my area.

What exactly are you getting at?

[Eclipse]

Kidding aside...

If you compare them side by side, you'll see that much of the current GTM Manual comes almost verbatim from the "United States Air Force Search and Rescue Survival Training: Af Regulation 64-4".

I can't speak to the lineage of the actual materials, certainly the ground SAR program was for years referred to as the Ranger program, there's no denying that, but the missions we undertake today are a far cry from Ranger-level activities (even in the CAP sense).

I'm sure there's 15 reasons steeped in intrigue, politics, inter-agency rivalry and liability issues as to why that is, but one thing is for sure, there isn't a single cadet in the program today who ever came up through the old program, and even the seniors who were rated in that way are getting scarce, consideraing that the current materials came into being over a decade ago.

[Rodriguez]

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade.

There is no such grade within the CAP program.

What you are likely referring to is an NCSA run in (I believe but am not sure) the Poconos that does some SAR training and the like.  Its a pretty good adventure camp, but doesn't confer any special CAP ratings.

A graduate of that program is no more (or less) qualified to perform CAP ES missions than any other GTM in the program.

I think that what many people seem to forget is that, Rangers do have to attain the corresponding GTM level when they achieve a ranger grade. And that goes for Hawk as well, we do GT training there just as you would at NESA. And for the most part the two do correspond. A few differences are simple stuff like woodsmanship, and survival. But other than that When we say ranger were really talking the same thing as GT. The main difference is the training environment. Simple as that.

Am I the only one that finds it strange that a C/Capt. has never heard of a CAP Ranger grade. And I say "CAP" Ranger because unfortunately you've confused us for the Army Rangers, which we in mo way profess to be. I mean we have park rangers, and state troopers have been known to be called "Rangers" from time to time.
But, again no relation to the Army Rangers.

I actually know what CAP Rangers are - wish I haven't since around 2003. My comment was somewhat of a tongue in cheek.  CAP Rangers is NOT what I want CAP GTM to be based on, ever. That's also why Pawger is a noun where I come from. 

^ Plus many uh "rangers" are more or less ignored because of the attitude that seems to come from the "ranger" schools, but i wont start down that long road....

^^^ We may be not traveling down the same road, eh?

Is it really necessary?, your humor? I mean I'm not sitting here saying I'm better than you and this is better than that.
I have better things to do.