Mounted search and rescue

[Una Smith <una.smith@att.net>]

Cathy Blaser wrote:
>When you say that ICS and NIMS are required for first responders does that 
>include a Sheriff's Posse with no extra federal funding?

That does appear to be what Jorene Downs claims, and the
idea is common in the SAR community.  However, it appears
to have no legal basis.  

Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5 and 8 (HSPD-5
and HSPD-8 for short) are often cited as the legal basis,
*but* they are not laws.  Both concern disaster response,
*but* they apply only to US exectutive branch departments
and agencies.  The agency of primary relevance to SAR is
FEMA.  The legal authorities for HSPD-5 and HSPD-8 are the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (as ammended) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Perhaps those Acts provide the legal basis?  Nope.  Both
are very long documents, but expert analyses are available
for both, which are concise and in fairly clear language.
Neither Act applies to search and rescue (attempts to make
them apply involve stretching interpretations);  neither
Act requires volunteers of any kind to use or be trained in
anything to do with ICS or NIMS;  and neither Act requires
state or other local governments to make such requirements
on their own.

Also, as Irv Lichtenstein has been trying to explain, in
the context of NIMS the term "first responder" has a very
specific, formally defined meaning.  This meaning may (and
probably does) exclude the vast majority of SAR responders.

Okay, so there's no *law* that says all SAR responders in
the US must be trained in and use ICS and NIMS (applying
ICS to national-scale incidents).  Does that let slackers
and poseurs like me off the hook?  Nope.  Because any AHJ
can choose to require training in and use of ICS and NIMS,
and many have done so.  Eg, in New Mexico, legal authority
for SAR is held by the state Department of Public Safety,
SAR Resource Office.  And the SAR Resource Office is busy
organizing training...that is consistent with NIMS.

My personal opinion is that ICS is the way to go for SAR
missions.  Whether NIMS will be the way to go for national
incidents remains to be seen.  The Hurricane Katrina mess
shows that NIMS either (1) is a disaster or (2) is too new
for its (eventual) performance to be evaluated.  I favor
#2.

Bottom line:  As SAR responders, we all must do what the
AHJ wants us to do, or else the AHJ simply won't call us
for missions.  It is that simple.

        Una Smith
        New Mexico


Recommended reading:

http://www.fema.gov/nims/
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-5.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-8.html
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (187 pages):
  http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/hr_5005_enr.pdf
  A "plain talk" analysis of it:
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/analysis/
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, as amended by Public Law 106-390, October 30, 2000:
  http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm
  (but there has been at least one subsequent amendment)
  An analysis of it, by the Congressional Research Service:
  www.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33090.pdf