Mounted search and rescue

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

Victoria Hill wrote:
>                                                Attacking folks for
>voicing their opinion on what they believe is right for the good of
>their group in their respective area is nonproductive,

No one has attacked anyone.  Questioning someone else's point of
view, and sharing your own, is not an attack.  It is a necessary
ingredient of open discussion.

This exact difference in point of view has come up here before and
I find it very interesting.  I also think it is important.  I want
to understand where the other side is coming from.


Victoria Hill wrote:
>                                                   people who talk
>down by throwing their "I have this, I have that, blah blah blah" is
>very condescending.

I'd rather have people disclose their "credentials" than hide them.
Also, I know from experience not to assume that if someone does not
disclose credentials or conflicts of interest, they have none.  How
does it feel when you suppose you are talking to just another SAR
responder and only later by chance you discover they are a big wig?


Victoria Hill wrote:
>                                                I realize you can only
>"voice" your experiences from your respective states that you reside in
>but we all don't live in New Mexico or Pennsylvania.

That's exactly the point I (New Mexico) and Irv (Pennsylvania) want
to make.  What should a national standard consist of?  Should it be
a higher standard for elite teams that respond nationwide, or should
it be a lower standard that is a common minimum for all teams?  A
given national standard can support one or the other objective, not
both.

Each time we have this discussion I learn more about SAR in other
jurisdictions and I have a clearer view of what I want in a national
minimum standard.

        Una Smith
        New Mexico