Civil Air Patrol Rangers

[RiverAux]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

[lordmonar]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

Unless you are in PAWG/FLWG or any other place where they have an active ranger program.

Guys...it's just a word.

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

Get over it.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger"...

Ford Ranger?

[wingnut55]

POWER RANGER

[Major Carrales]

The fact is that this is not a current term in use to describe CAP ground operations units no matter what might have been used in the past. 

Unless you are in PAWG/FLWG or any other place where they have an active ranger program.

Guys...it's just a word.

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

Get over it.

We should be proud of what we do, more so than ashamed of what we do not do.  

I have always warned against comparison between CAP and the other entities that many of our number have been members of.  That includes the USAF, other Armed Services, Fire and Police...yes, we need to honor those professions, but making comparisons is like "apples and oranges."

Notice that everytime someone makes one of these comparisons...it leads to putting down CAP (good works, missions, personnel and all) in favor of some idealized CAP that does not, cannot and likely will not exist.

[JohnKachenmeister]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

[Major Carrales]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

Well written and well reasoned, Kach.  Kudos!!!  Now, let's see who "begs to differ."

[wuzafuzz]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

That's kind of a reach, Eric.  If they were working in a security or quasi-police capacity, sure.  Nobody is likely to mistake a team of CAP Rangers for park rangers, (nor for that matter, Army Rangers), and it certainly is not being done with the intent to perpetuate a fraud. 

[ricks]

So I am totally new here. I was a cadet in the early 1990's and was a ground team member. I don't recall if we called ourselves rangers or not but I do know that the experience was very useful in my career as a US Army Special Operations soldier and eventual team leader in Iraq. The idea that these kids have the opportunity to learn real-world skills like woodsmanship down to understanding the concept of noise and light discipline is terrific. I think however that the emphasis should be more on saving lives than taking them. In the end that is what a soldier does. If you trim all the fat and the MOS away, a soldier is on the line with a rifle. These kids should be taught the importance of disciple and bearing. They should be taught skills that will help them survive in austere environments. They should be taught life saving skills. They should be the best. and when the time comes, if they so decide, they should be prime candidates for PJ or SF 18D. A name is just a name, Ranger or Snake Eater or smores baker matters not, it is what they learn that makes the difference. That should be the debate.

[Hawk200]

"Ranger" is from the English, and originally meant a military force capable of operating detached from the main army.  The original Rangers were woodsmen who operated as a recon-in-force during the French and Indian Wars (Rogers' Rangers were the most famous.)  They were known for their knowledge of the terrain, and ability to operate independently.

"Ranger" in World War II was a term resurrected to identify American units trained to act like the "Commando" units of the British Army.  We needed a uniquely American name.  ("Commando," incidentally, was ripped off by the British from the Boer Dutch who called their Ranger units "Commando" companies during the Boer War).

After a brief post-war hibernation, the American Rangers were again reconstituted as an elite assault force.  They remain such a force today.

IF a CAP ground team is capable of self-sustained operations in an austere environment for 72 hours (the standard for GTM-1, by the way) I have no problem calling such teams CAP Rangers.  It is in keeping with the original definition of Rangers, a force that can be detached from the main body to act as a recon force on its own in the wilderness.

Well written and well reasoned, Kach.  Kudos!!!  Now, let's see who "begs to differ."

No "beg to differ", but a little additional info.

The original Ranger was little more than a scout. Those scouts would "range" the terrain, and report on what was out there. Those reports could include just about anything and everything, from terrain that could be problematic to food and water sources. They became known as "Rangers".

A good read on the subject is a book by John D. Lock called "To Fight with Intrepidity: The Complete History of the U.S. Army Rangers 1622 to Present". I don't normally read military history, but the book is fascinating. Be forewarned, the hardcover is 580 pages! After doing a little research, I found that he has another book, which I'll dig up as soon as I get home.

As to CAP "Rangers", I think it's something that needs to be kept low key, as many folks aren't really aware of the history of the term.  To most of the American public, a Ranger is a hardcore Army guy like Rambo. Not accurate, but difficult to change the minds of millions of people.

[Hawk200]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

I would very much like to see those laws in writing from a reliable source. Telling people that they can't use the word "ranger" in a general sense is rather out there. Some might think of it as unconstitutional.

[alamrcn]

Oh yah, I forgot this one.....



The folks that live near Grand Rapids, Minnesota and on the iron range are called "Iron Rangers" - and the Civil Air Patrol unit there follows suit.

Don't we have several units that refer to themselves as Swamp Rats too?

[swamprat86]

Just me. 

[wuzafuzz]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

I would very much like to see those laws in writing from a reliable source. Telling people that they can't use the word "ranger" in a general sense is rather out there. Some might think of it as unconstitutional.

Here is a reliable source, pertinent to California.  I wasn't just making stuff up.  Sorry about the long post, but I'm not sure a dynamically created URL from a search would work.  

As I mentioned before, it is extremely unlikely a CAP member would actually be cited for the infraction, but a lecture and admonishment to knock it off could happen.  There are better ways to maintain a positive image.  

It's not like the California cops looking for CS laws to enforce, but CAP shouldn't ignore them either.  Now the lawyers can argue the specifics, whether we fall under the federal exclusion, etc.  Better to simply avoid it IMHO.  

CALIFORNIA CODES
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 4021-4022

4021.  Except as otherwise provided, the willful or negligent
commission of any of the acts prohibited or the omission of any of
the acts required by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 4251) to
Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 4411), inclusive, of Part 2 of
this division is a misdemeanor.

4022.  (a) The titles of ranger, park ranger, and forest ranger, and
derivations thereof, may only be used by persons who are peace
officers under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3
of Part 2 of the Penal Code, employees of the Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection, or employees of the Department of Parks and
Recreation classified as State Park Ranger (Permanent Intermittent).
Any person, other than a peace officer or employee of the Department
of Parks and Recreation, as described in this section, or employee
of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, who willfully
wears, exhibits, or uses any authorized badge, insignia, emblem,
device, label, title, or card of a ranger, park ranger, forest
ranger, or a derivation thereof, to identify the person as a ranger,
park ranger, or forest ranger, or who willfully wears, exhibits, or
uses any badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, title, or card of a
ranger, park ranger, or forest ranger, which so resembles the
authorized version that it would deceive an ordinary, reasonable
person into believing that it is authorized for the use  of a ranger,
park ranger, or forest ranger, is guilty of a infraction.
  (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to positions and titles of
agencies of the United States government or to any local agency which
is officially using any title specified in subdivision (a) as of
January 1, 1990.

[openmind]

Some states have laws limiting the use of the title "ranger" and "park ranger" to peace officers, typically those enforcing the law in and around parks of some kind.  People running around claiming to be rangers may find themselves on the wrong side of the law.  Some jurisdictions are very sensitive to anything resembling impersonation of a peace officer.

Granted, the chances of a CAP ground team being arrested for calling themselves "Rangers" is extremely limited.  But why go inviting yet another negative perception? 

The obvious exception is federal employees and military.  Most of the time CAP doesn't qualify.  Aux Off and all that.

That's kind of a reach, Eric.  If they were working in a security or quasi-police capacity, sure.  Nobody is likely to mistake a team of CAP Rangers for park rangers, (nor for that matter, Army Rangers), and it certainly is not being done with the intent to perpetuate a fraud. 

Just as an FYI, this issue around Legal restrictions on the use of a name has also been a problem in the IT industry.

Somewhere around here I still have the Novell and Microsoft docs from thirteen or fourteen years ago that noted, in bold print, that in States with laws restricting the use of the term Engineer to PEs, the actual meaning of my CNE and MCSE certifications became the initials only, and not the name which they abbreviated.  For instance, my Certified NetWare Engineer became simply CNE with no special meaning.  Otherwise you ran afoul of State laws in various States which severely penalized anyone claiming to be an Engineer who was not actually a PE.

This also means that in some States you simply won't find a job title of 'Sanitation Engineer', the word Engineer in any sense involving a job or position or employment, is strictly regulated.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Ranger is likewise restricted in some States.

Of course, all of this is secondary to whether we even NEED to use the name, regardless of whether it is still found in some old USAF or .gov documents.  I'm not sure why 'CAP Ground Teams' would not be perfectly clear and suitable when mentioned in a news article.  (Hopefully, if the PAO did their job so we got credit from the Media.)

openmind

[DG]

The Ranger Creed

It is my duty as a member of the Rangers of the Civil Air Patrol ground search and rescue service, to save lives, aid the injured, and protect their property.

In order to do this, I will keep myself physically fit at all times.

I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before my personal desires and comfort.

These things I do that others may live....

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

[NIN]

No one has a monopoly on the term "ranger" and the only ones trying to equate CAP Ranger with "U.S. Army Ranger" or "Texas Ranger" or "National Park Ranger" are those who seem to think that CAP should not be proud of what we do.

This guy clearly has not:

[Senior]

I was at Fort Leonard Wood as a cadet.  We were there for Pathfinders
School(This was before the GT Badge and the training we have now).
It was a school to teach the realities of SAR in Missouri.  A cadet had the
red bar "Advanced Ranger" above his name tapes.  He got a lot of attention
from the Regular Army folks.  They thought he was some foreign soldier.
We don't need more tabs that will lead to more uniform additions

[Senior]

Another thought.... Maybe we should get rid of GT title and go to SAR TECH
and be recognized for our abilities.