Mounted search and rescue

[<Jorene@CEOates.com>]

 

From: tm-fi

I agree that there is no need to "out" anyone.  However, at minimum, the twelve States are represent the Committee should be known. ______
Jorene wrote:
I believe the committee is fairly well balanced for representation. (If you draw a vertical line through the middle of the USA we have 3 representatives on each side of that line. If you draw a horizontal line we have 3 on each side of the line.)
______    

Sorry again for the confusion. There are 6 members of the committee working on NASAR MSAR standards, which is a good size for reaching decisions rather quickly ... but also why we are actively seeking input from outside resources, so we're comfortable that all kinds of response areas are represented. Our "expert resources" might be anywhere. The web site inviting the MSAR public to express an opinion by voting on topics is global, as is input from this group.

 

I was confused when you referred to the team being somehow weighted by South Western influence, because we are spread around the country in MD, MN, CO, OK, and 2 in CA. If that somehow appears to weight CA, keep in mind CA is a big, long state, and if we were in a similar location on the east coast the 2 of us would likely be representing NY and VA. It would take me about 6 hours of highway driving to meet the person in No CA ... if I don't hit any commuter traffic. ;)

I sincerely expect that the Committee is only working towards a basic NASAR-MSAR standard.  It is imperative that any additional standards need to be created and implemented from those who first obtain the "basic introductory standard," then a new committee can progress towards additional standards from there!        

Existing MSAR standards tend to address local response area needs, and I've never seen an MSAR standard that had a core standard, plus specialty standards. (I suspect it would be rare to find standards that have anything written for entry level, or requirements for team leader training, etc.) When we agreed that this kind of approach would be advantageous - in fact, necessary - to address MSAR needs nationwide, there was pretty extensive committee discussion on the subject.

 

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to successfully design a core basic standard without considering the big picture of "what else?" might be added as a specialty. We needed to identify what those specialties would cover so we'd know what needed to be covered in the foundation. Decisions will need to reached regarding what fundamentals related to that specialty might be included in the core, and what would be exclusive to the specialty. In order to create a solid core standard, you also need to address the expansion into other areas. Kinda tough to try and piecemeal this kind of thing, much less create a partial and expect someone else to easily step in to add more. ;)

 

Current plans are to roll out the basic standard along with "specialty" add-ons, like Wilderness MSAR. Before the standards are "official" they'll be posted on the NASAR web site and be available for comment and suggestions, then revised based on that input. Hopefully we'll have enough ongoing input as we're building the standards that little or no revision will be needed.

Perhaps now is the time MSAR-Rider group to form a similar committee and suggest minimum performance standards that can be used by all volunteer teams regardless of their demographics.  

That is the objective of the NASAR MSAR standards ... but not just addressing minimum standards since there is a dire need in some areas for standards that go beyond the basics, and you can't really do one without the other. ;)

 

You present an interesting idea to form an independent committee, though I'm not sure how this would be accomplished. If individuals from MSAR-Riders developed MSAR standards, what vehicle (organization of some kind) would you use to launch these standards at a national level that already has existing recognition? Also, what ground SAR standards would you use as a minimum requirement ... or would you plan to write both ground and mounted standards? And how would you somehow test and certify MSAR teams that choose to use the standards so there is consistency in application? Who would take on the liability issues of a wreck during training / testing with someone pointing a finger at the MSAR-Rider standards as creating the situation that caused the wreck? (Never mind that the rider was incompetent and the horse unsuitable.)

 

These kinds of issues are what led me to work with NASAR to develop MSAR standards. Perhaps not ideal, but I can't come up with a better option.

 

I believe MSAR-Riders provides exceptional (if not the best) representation of our entire community and includes teams from throughout the Country.  Regardless, there is an immediate need for someone to provide a low (or no) cost set of standards for the entire volunteer MSAR Community that contains suggested detail specific performance levels and guidelines for teams everywhere. 

 

While I agree there is substantial knowledge on this group - I have already been picking brains here to share with the committee <g> - I don't understand the reference to "low (or no) cost" standards, which incorrectly implies expensive application of NASAR MSAR standards. A copy of the NASAR MSAR standards will be available to anyone who is interested. Those who choose to use those standards are not required to be NASAR members ... unless they are pursuing certification direct from NASAR.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jorene Downs, Committee Chair
NASAR MSAR Standards Committee
visit NASAR on www.nasar.org