Mounted search and rescue

["Jorene Downs" <Jorene@CEOates.com>]

Sorry for the confusion, Dick. I'll supply some detail so you and any others asking the "Why training?" question can better understand.

 

So there is no misunderstanding regarding the "pay" issue, I'll mention I have over 30 years as a trained volunteer in public safety. If I wanted to participate, I took the required classes. If I wanted to become more versatile, or move up the ladder for more responsibility, I took more training and got more experience. In all my various trained volunteer roles in public safety over the decades, at least entry level training of some kind has always been required. Always.

 

Consider from the SAR incident management perspective how advantageous it is to know that person already has training in map and compass, securing a crime scene, basic search techniques, first aid ... the list goes on. Add previously demonstrated rider skills and a proven reliable horse for MSAR. Know in advance that your folks carry at least X equipment with them and are correctly attired for the mission, etc.

 

With known resources, management can simply start assigning missions and deploying resources. The alternative is delaying while you try to determine exactly what skills - or possible lack of skills - that unknown person has, plus considering what equipment that person may/may not have, and other factors, so you can make a best guess on where you can safely send that unknown person ... or perhaps you shouldn't send that particular person anywhere.

 

(Picture the barefoot bareback rider in shorts and a tank top, not carrying any water or emergency supplies, with only a halter and lead rope as a "bridle and reins" ... as the horse jigs nervously in the crowded area and pins ears at nearby horses. Years ago I actually had a gal show up, volunteering to help, fitting this description. Is this person prepared to be a mounted searcher, or are there safety concerns?)

 

Delays may well result in loss of life, and sending out someone without proven knowledge, skills and abilities might result in later needing to divert resources to help that less prepared person. So yes, a very strong emphasis is put on having pre-identified personnel with known knowledge, skills and abilities. The pre-identification / certification is based on documented training, demonstrating knowledge, skills and abilities, and meeting other requirements. This approach doesn't eliminate potential for problems that takes resources away from the search to resolve, but it sure reduces potential.

 

Commonly there are prerequisites indicated by the authority having jurisdiction (in the Western states this is normally the sheriff's department) for certain roles and positions in SAR response. Sometimes a requirement originates at the state or even national level. Nobody - paid or volunteer - is considered "qualified" / eligible for deployment by that jurisdiction without meeting those requirements. Generally the SAR organizations independent of a specific jurisdiction - more often found in the Midwest or east coast - must meet the jurisdiction's requirements or are not considered eligible for activation by that jurisdiction. There are still some operational areas with no requirements specific to SAR, much less MSAR, although that is gradually changing.

 

At the national level - and state and local - there are clear expectations regarding deployable emergency responders having consistency in at least the fundamental training, and SAR response falls into that category. However, all operational areas have not yet put a focus on requiring all SAR volunteers to meet the requirements.

 

Required courses are identified at the local, state or national level. State and national/international standards are commonly written by groups of folks considered subject matter experts using Best Practices to identify consistency in contents for minimum training, creating minimum expectations for that resource's knowledge, skills and abilities. This consistency in contents for minimum training is available in various courses from field level to incident command. Training regarding more specialized skills may also be available. Locally you can certainly add to the minimum training with emphasis on certain subjects or even adding subjects ... but the basic foundation remains.

 

If your operational area doesn't have SAR responder requirements, the adjacent one might. If your local requirements don't have the same minimum foundation as your neighbor's, odds are you won't get called to help. Trying to establish minimum consistency is one reason why there are SAR / MSAR standards in many states and available at the national level. Mutual aid or out of area response is notably more effective if the folks arriving have the same foundation in training, carry minimum equipment, use the same management structure, etc.

 

For example, I have experience at the command post for literally hundreds of searches, and if asked  I can step into an ICP even in a different state and they can put me right to work ... IF we have a common foundation in training put to use. This wasn't feasible even a decade ago, but expectations in SAR have changed. If that ICP used a different management structure, different terminology, etc., I would not be useful as quickly. Fundamental consistency is more efficient and effective, allowing the focus to be on the search instead of on the job training.

 

The idea is to have a common foundation for all so management can also have consistency in expectations regarding certain levels of training and capabilities for various resources. It makes little sense to activate day riders as searchers if you really need experienced backcountry riders prepared to be out overnight who are also trained as mounted trackers. Different documented types of training and equipment indicates who gets deployed, not just folks raising a hand saying "I can do that!" who may / may not be badly overestimating their own capabilities. If someone has good skills to contribute, particularly more specialized skills, those capabilities are far more likely to be used if that person is already "in the system" as a trained volunteer.

 

A non-SAR example might be law enforcement, where years ago no actual pre-training was required even for the paid officers ... it was on the job training. Over time that changed to wannabe officers going to academy training to demonstrate having certain skills and establish some consistency in knowledge before being assigned. The better instructors are able to share additional real and useful information while still covering all the required course material.

 

The foundation is created by the training, but the experience - hopefully under the guidance of at least one good training officer - is what turns the LE rookie into a better qualified officer. The same is true in SAR, where hopefully there are some experienced and very knowledgeable mentors to help turn the SAR-trained rookie into a well qualified searcher.

 

Having the initial training just opens the door by ensuring knowledge of fundamentals. The experience - including learning from others - is what makes you a better resource, regardless of your level of training. The more "tools" you have in your mental toolkit, the more options there are to consider that may provide a solution. Every incident, every mission, is a bit different. What worked well in one situation may not be the best choice in another.

 

I've found SAR/MSAR is much like working with horses - the more you learn the more you realize there is still more to learn. ;-)

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Jorene Downs

SAR, CERT, Emergency Communications

Mounted SAR

http://www.ceoates.com/msar

KJ6JCD

 

From: Dick L Sweet

(It takes substantial formal training and experience to be considered qualified for any incident management or supervisor level position.)

 

Your quote is a very good and clear statement……………however as in all instances, you do not make it clear as to whom passes judgment on those of us who may have more experience and qualification than the “teacher”. One needs to only recognize that the 1^st professors..were nothing more than field, life experienced individuals paid to share their knowledge, understanding and wisdom with others.

What we have today, masquerading as teachers is classroom based knowledge with little or NO life or field experience to bring out the understanding and application of said knowledge.

Threatened by “volunteers” while you educated elitist elevate ea other to yet higher and higher levels of ………………..ughhh

This is like “casting Pearls before swine”

They seem to glory in the fact that IF they only have certifications and we don’t they are “smarter, qualified” and therefore should be in charge somehow………….that is socialism at it root!!! In order to maximize ones worth..some feel they must first marginalize everyone’s else’s!!!

 

From: Jorene Downs

Karen, I believe the recent posts were not made by someone paid to perform SAR/MSAR, as you seem to believe. I think it needs to be clarified that there are trained volunteers who are affiliated with a recognized response group and eligible for activation, and [presumed] untrained spontaneous volunteers. Some of the posts may not have made that distinction clear when referring to "volunteers."

 

What you described is untrained spontaneous volunteers - also known as unaffiliated volunteers -  mixed with comments on family participation.  Those should be considered separate topics. The line is a bit fuzzy for a general usage definition, but generally reference to the spontaneous volunteer is when an official search is launched by the appropriate authorities and people in the community show up wanting to help. These folks have not followed the process to be recognized as a trained and affiliated volunteer, but are certainly folks to consider for recruiting.

 

Concerns regarding the spontaneous volunteers participating as searchers during a SAR incident are not related to someone feeling as if their job as a paid employee may be threatened, since the vast majority of SAR (including MSAR) in the USA is performed by trained volunteers, not paid personnel.  

 

I have met several of the recent posters and they, like myself, are trained volunteers with substantial training and credentials recognized or even required at the local, state or national level. Some of us have years of experience at the SAR command post, with anything from a handful of callouts per year to working hundreds of incidents ... as unpaid trained volunteers.

 

Paid personnel in SAR - for example an LE Sgt - are more likely to be active at the management level, representing the authority having jurisdiction for that SAR incident ... and spontaneous volunteers don't have the credentials to threaten those positions. (It takes substantial formal training and experience to be considered qualified for any incident management or supervisor level position.)

 

Spontaneous volunteers are NOT perceived as a threat to anyone's SAR-related income. Instead, the vast majority of SAR / MSAR response commonly results in out of pocket expenses for the trained volunteer who has already invested substantially in training and appropriate equipment, the MSAR-trained mount, etc.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Jorene Downs

SAR, CERT, Emergency Communications

Mounted SAR

http://www.ceoates.com/msar

KJ6JCD

 

From: Karen Nesbitt

 

Hmmm, I get it.. what it is going to come down too is that there will not be enough manpower PERIOD..  And so what some of you here that get paid are just about saying is that those of  family members who have a missing person should not even search in their own backyards or farm fields.  I get the impression that you feel volunteers threaten your jobs.   [...]