I live within commuting distance of a major metropolitan area
(Minneapolis/St. Paul). My county is rural agricultural with an
increasing residential population. I just passed a corn field that just
started sprouting houses. One of the farmers that I buy hay from sold
one of his fields - its becoming an industrial park. You'd be hard
pressed to call anything here "wilderness".
In Terry's neck of the woods, in the Red River Valley, its heavily
agriculture, very open, with a couple major national wildlife refuges.
Terry knows my veiw is from going to college up there 20 a bunch years ago.
Sounds like Jorene and Una live in an area with some heavy duty
wilderness. And yet we should be all covered by the same Msar National
Standards. Standards which would be more than adequate for my unit
would leave wilderness searchers dangerously underprepared. And
wilderness quality standards would saddle my unit with useless and even
silly requirements.
Terry probably mentioned that in Minnesota the county sheriffs are
required by law to search for lost or missing persons within their
county. That is why all mounted posses/patrols are attached to the
sheriff's office. We can only be activated by out sheriff's office
(which I dicsovered really pisses off the FBI). Any national standard
must conform to the sheriff's office policy or we can't use it.
And to compound problems, it must be appliciable to all of us or it
wouldn't be a national standard.
My only thought on this would to be a multi layered standard - a basic
set that would apply to all units, and a more advanced set for those who
do more intensive searches. This sounds like an approach that would be
tough to work also.
I'm glad I'm not on the Standards Committee - my head hurts just
thinking this much.
Kevin
[MSAR] Msar Standards - my point of view,
Kevin Stokes, 10/30/2003