Mounted search and rescue

["David C. Kovar" <kovar@1srg.org>]

Jorene,

You've raised a number of interesting points. Hopefully I'll cover them,
from my perspective, completely. Bear in mind that I wasn't necessarily
suggesting that someone start a new MSAR organization. I was simply
responding to your statement that a new MSAR organization would need to
depend on an existing "national" organization.

1) Membership.

I have certifications from Rescue 3, the FAA, the FCC, Dallas Fire
Department, ARC, WMA, SOLO/NOLS, AFRCC and a couple of other organizations.
None of those mentioned required me to join the organization to receive the
nationally recognized certification.

NASAR specifically includes the cost of a one year membership in their
training cost. The other organizations do not. Based on just this point,
which organization would I prefer to get my certification from?

2) "Prove I have X certification".

Hopefully, they'd just issue me a certificate, ala American Red Cross. Show
certificate, proof accepted.

3) MSAR organization

Yes, there would be a lot of work involved in setting up an MSAR
organization. However, it really isn't all that complicated. Figure out who
wants to be part of it, develop some bylaws, and file some papers. You can
file for federal non-profit status immediately. It takes awhile to go
through, during which period you can act as if you have it. If it goes
through, all is well and good. If not then things get complicated. Don't
file unless you're sure you qualify. I've done this on several occasions now
and it just isn't that tough.

4) Fundraising.

It isn't clear to me a) how much funding is required to accomplish this and
b) how much NASAR is really contributing to it.

Some people might be willing to give money to an MSAR organization when they
wouldn't be willing to give to NASAR. 

5) NASAR vs MSAR membership.

You said "I think some people object to having any association with NASAR,
so
they'd also balk at independent MSAR standards that require NASAR
certification."

I'd suggest that, if structured correctly, people might be a lot happier to
join an MSAR organization than NASAR. In theory joining NASAR is a great
idea. In practice, far less so. In my experience, the MRA is a lot better at
taking care of its membership, communicating with its membership, and
setting and testing for high standards than NASAR is. (NASAR has gotten a
lot better in this past year but I'm still not letting out a sigh of
relief.) A well run MSAR organization could run circles around NASAR and, in
so doing, might improve NASAR.

Other points:

Could you provide examples of the following:

1) "already has methods to maintain records". Counterpoint - how long does
it usually take for someone to get their paperwork? Isn't NASAR the
organization that was going to implement a SAR yellow card without checking
with anyone else, and without doing any reasonable design work on the card
and system? Just because they have a system doesn't mean it is the right
system.

2) "already has the ear of the feds regarding SAR standards". They do, along
with a lot of other organizations. Do they have more of an ear than the MRA?
NFTA? ATSM? National SAR typing was done by Titan, a defense department
contractor, not by the "national" association of search and rescue. (NASAR,
the MRA, and others got a word in eventually.) FEMA/DHS has much more say in
SAR standards. 

3) "I haven't seen any suggestions that make me think another option is an
improvement over partnering with an established SAR-related organization."

I'm all for an MSAR group partnering with NASAR. I think it could be
beneficial for both parties. And if NASAR really is improving, as it seems
to be, perhaps MSAR standards should be part of NASAR. But, to be on the
safe side, I'd go the partnership route.

-David


-----Original Message-----
From: msar-riders-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:msar-riders-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jorene Downs
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 11:20 PM
To: Mounted search and rescue
Subject: Re: [MSAR] MSAR standards / NASAR MSAR Practical standards


Hi, David -
I had a similar discussion with myself before making the commitment to NASAR
to chair the committee developing MSAR standards. ;)

If the MSAR standards require certification from NASAR as you suggest, what
are the advantages / disadvantages in having a separate organization only
addressing the MSAR part of the training?

Advantages -
* Independent from NASAR or other SAR organizations ... with the exception
of requiring riders somehow proving they actually have NASAR certification
for Ground SAR prior to being certified for MSAR.

Disadvantages -
* I'm thinking you'd end up with a "prove you have NASAR certification"
process where you'd need to collaborate with NASAR to confirm. This might
appear as an expense in the independent MSAR organization. Or perhaps not,
since NASAR would be getting income from all the MSAR Riders who want MSAR
certification and first need NASAR certification.
* You'd be asking MSAR riders to pay dues to 2 organizations instead of 1.
* The MSAR organization would still need to design and develop the new
organization. Lots of paperwork / overhead in creating and maintaining a new
non-profit organization dedicated to MSAR, and you'd have to start from
scratch for funding.  (I heard somewhere that you need to be in existence
for a year before applying for non-profit status?)  This includes the
start-up expense of publishing standards and making them available to the
public.
*  In either situation you'd need to develop and roll out a "Train The
Trainer" for the MSAR standards.
*  I think some people object to having any association with NASAR, so
they'd also balk at independent MSAR standards that require NASAR
certification.

I strongly support the concept of national standards for MSAR. And after
considering various options I thought the cleanest method is to go through
NASAR, who already has Ground SAR standards, already has methods to maintain
records, already has established marketing, already has the ear of the feds
regarding SAR standards, already has self-supporting organizational
structure in place, etc. I haven't seen any suggestions that make me think
another option is an improvement over partnering with an established
SAR-related organization.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jorene Downs
Tulare Co, CA
SAR, MSAR, Swiftwater Rescue, US&R,
Technical Rescue, Cave Rescue,
Hasty Team, ICP
www.CEOates.com/sar
Tulare-Kings CERT Program Coordinator
www.tk-cert.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David C. Kovar" <kovar@1srg.org>
Jorene said:
" I'm thinking any recognized "national standard" for MSAR will need the
backing of an organization recognized nationwide to create and publish the
standards, provide instructors / evaluators, etc., to certify riders. But
any decent standard for MSAR would need to also define and certify Ground
SAR standards for riders, which would essentially put a new MSAR
organization in competition with NASAR for Ground SAR training and
certification. "

Why couldn't the new MSAR organization include "you must have NASAR SAR Tech
II to be fully certified by our standards"? No competition, some healthy
cooperation, no overlap. NASAR does it's thing, the new MSAR group does its
thing.

NASAR could say "You must have wilderness first aid to fully certify as a
SAR Tech II" and we'd all be better off. Ok, SAR Tech I, but you get the
idea. Let various groups address their own specializations and foster
cooperation rather than competition.

-David

_______________________________________________
MSAR-Riders mailing list
MSAR-Riders@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/msar-riders