Surely a ranger should have Tracking as a class ability?
Yes, although it is one of the Hunter template’s proficiencies.
Sure, but is an Elven Ranger without that proficiency a proper Elven Ranger? It smells like skill-tax. (As if a Thief needed to spend a proficiency on Climbing.)
Do you think then that the templates don’t fit the class ?
I mean, most of the time you’d probably roll up Hunter anyway, but I can’t see the need for tracking for falconers, wanderers or mariners.
“Expert at archery and woodcraft, rangers are often compared to the human class of explorers that ranges past settled borders and opens up new settlements.”
Yeah, I’m not really wild about the Mariner template either – it doesn’t meet the core description of the class at all. (Didn’t really notice it before now.)
The thing is, I don’t have a problem with the class as such. I like it. I have a problem with it not meeting the expectations calling it a Ranger sets up – and I believe tracking is one.
Like the bard and magical music I don’t think the Ranger should have tracking by default. I can see why there might be an expectation in that direction given the heavily reinforced history in D&D and other media with rangers and tracking, but I like that ACKS is prepared to buck that trend and give Rangers another option.
That said, perhaps the class name carries too much baggage, or the class description does make the association too strong.
and anyway, you could always houserule the class Demoss 
Sure. Still, thinking about this further – and why I don’t mind bards not having magical music by default – the problem has to do with Tracking being a general proficiency.
If there’s extra candy specific to your class you can spend your class proficiency on, cool. (Eg. magical music.)
If there’s a general proficiency strongly associated with your class that you don’t get without spending one of your two proficiencies on it… less cool.