Mounted search and rescue

[Una Smith <una@lanl.gov>]

Jorene wrote:
>Short of forming some kind of MSAR association that would be
>fledgling and have no nationwide recognition for many years,
>I saw NASAR as the best / fastest vehicle to establish a
>national standard.

Heh.  Although NASAR had "talked" about MSAR for years before
MSAR-Riders began, talk doesn't count for much.  I think the
current action on NASAR's part has rather a lot to do with the
fact that MSAR-Riders exists...and is the dynamite discussion
group that it is.


>In order to work with NASAR the MSAR committee is required to use
>NASAR's ground SAR standards.

Exclusively, you mean.

I think it would be a colossal waste of resources, to have to
redo the entire process of developing an open standard simply
because NASAR has jumped out ahead of the crowd.  Of course, 
any standard that NASAR puts forward will itself stand on the
shoulders of others (including MSAR-Riders).  Fine by me.  I
can support a standard that requires "training to an approved
prerequisite standard (such as NASAR X)";  I cannot support a
standard that requires "training to the NASAR X standard".

Do you see the difference?  My problem with the second example
would *not* be because of NASAR, but because such a standard
would be too restrictive and for no good reason.  (My problem
with *NASAR* is that NASAR encourages this larger problem in
the interest of generating revenue;  I think that is immoral.)
What happens if (when) NASAR folds?

There is a real potential that emerging SAR standards will be
written into state laws.  In that event, any restriction that
creates an exclusive role for NASAR would be very hard to fix.

        Una Smith
        Santa Fe County Sheriff's Posse, in New Mexico