Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

msar-riders - Re: [MSAR] Identifying NASAR MSAR Instructors

msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Mounted search and rescue

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Julie Hensley" <julie@petwearusa.com>
  • To: "Mounted search and rescue" <msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [MSAR] Identifying NASAR MSAR Instructors
  • Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:00:41 -0400

At the risk of too many replies to too many replies...
 
The evaluator access question is one that crops up even with USAR dog teams.  Despite all the pressure that task forces feel to get dog teams up to speed, there is still a dearth of qualified instructors and evaluators.  I've seen teams bend rules to make someone an evaluator that has no experience in the field (and thus no real understanding of the "spirit" of an exercise).
 
If you are concerned that the integrity of team members is impinged by insinuating that they can't be reliably evaluated by fellow members.. I would question why evaluators would be necessary at all??  If the prospective team is so far beyond the basic issues that arise by such potential ego clashes and conflicts of interest.. then I would think that team members could be "self certified"... I am being facetious here.. but it does address the question of how far one can take the question of "bending standards or flawed judgement".
 
In the dog teams I have already seen remarkable pressure applied to evaluators by the trainers, team leaders, etc... to put these evaluators in the position of having to live with those people seems a bit much to ask in the best of circumstances.  If anything, part of my interest in MSAR is due to the fact that I want to contribute but would like to avoid the incredible political environment I see in that arena.. ironically, the posts of the last week don't do much to reassure me that MSAR is much different.  Prior to these, I was very impressed with the free exchange of ideas and experience... I've gotten ALOT of email in the last few days from this list, but the current "debate" lacks that substance (which is not to say it lacks merit).
 
I do wish those parties saddled with the task of determining standards and instruction the best in their endeavors.. but I also think that the current status of MSAR proves that while there is no doubt room for improvement, that a variety of different approaches can work.  I consider that this debate is obviously valuable if not critical but wonder if it might be best served on another list for those that are more aware of the implications and involved in its resolution.  This list has (to my limited experience thus far) seemed to best serve those with "beginner" questions being answered by those seasoned participants...
 
Just my 2 cents.. and probably overpriced at that.
 
Julie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [MSAR] Identifying NASAR MSAR Instructors

(snips from Una and Jorene)
> First, I think it is inappropriate to have certification
> evaluations performed by a member of the unit, so this
> problem would apply only to training in preparation for
> an evaluation by an outside evaluator.

Agreed.
I am not sure if I agree wholeheartedly with this. I'm thinking out loud here so bear with me. <g> I can see the reasoning behind not having a member evaluate other members. However that is assuming that the evaluator would be somehow either prejudiced in their judgement or able to bend the standards to suit their situation. I think this is an insult to MSAR members and potential evaluators. I have been evaluated in many professional situations by folks that I know and have never found their evaluations to be flawed by prejudices. Also I wonder if some remote teams may not have easy access to evaluators. Short of having one of their own members become an evaluator this could put a big damper on getting teams certified. Perhaps the solution is simply that-  that evaluators should be certified by some outside group and then they can certify whomever. Still could be logistics problems here but maybe teams could band together and share an evaluator.
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page