Are there search and rescue EMS jobs besides military....

[Mountain Res-Q]

I dont really know if Mountain Rescue is the :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: stepchild here in CO anymore, Its very competitive to get on the more prestigious MRA teams here, way more than any volley FD that I know of . If anything we are gaining more respect every year. It is true that we run more way more missions than FD runs fires, however "The no charge for rescue" culture means that we do not get reimbursed for what we do.
With the solid increasing trend of outdoor recreation, and corresponding amount of rescues, I wouldn't be surprised if we see the advent of a small paid rescue culture here in the rockies at some point, much like there is in europe. In my opinion there is probably already a need for a highly trained, rescue specific HEMS operation in the rockies to better cater to the ~500 MR missions every year and ski patrol operations. Although we already have way too many HEMS agencies in the front range......:wacko:

While things differ from state to state, I agree. Although, I don't know what "charging for rescue" has to do with it. Fire Departments don't charge for fire fighting and yet firefighting is (or can be) a paid profession. And, technically, many states have laws that allow for the victims of a SAR to be billed later. In California the law states that if you needed SAR because you knowingly put yourself in a situation that was going to be bad, you can be charged; such as driving across a flooded road with "road closed" signs and needing Swiftwater to pull you out. Even if you needed SAR because "sh*t happens" the law allows the county SO to bill the county from which the victim lives, and there have been cases of that county passing the bill on to the victim.

But that is beside the point... more of a "different strokes for different states" type of thing...

I will say this about the current system: we are so use to it being the way it is that we do not question it... it is what it is. It is a "frog in boiling water" type thing. However, think of this: Many or maybe most county's have a Search & Rescue Team. That term implies that this agency provides Search & Rescue services... duh... Yet, many SAR Teams are not really what they claim to be. There was a paper written by a lawyer in the late 80's that I love... he got involved in SAR and analyzed the liabilities on the county, sheriff, the team, and the members. There was a lot of surprising things in the paper, but one thing to focus on here:

If you claim to be something, then you have to be it. What I mean is, how many SAR teams do search AND rescue? Many are little more than a search team claiming to be a SAR Team. Others provide some forms of rescue, but not comprehensively. That is a problem when two "SAR Teams" in neighboring counties provide different services to their respective counties; one county may be involved in swiftwater, but the other is not... in the paper, he noted instances where lawsuits were successful because they claimed to be a SAR Team, but did not provide the same services that several neighboring counties did... FALSE ADVERTISING!!! Now, I mention that for this reason: In another thread, mycrofft asked about online resources for SAR Training. He got two responses; one set for USAR and one set for WSAR. The fact is that if a county has a SAR Team, why is it assumed that they are the providers of WSAR only, while FIRE is generally viewed as the providers of USAR? I am not a member of a WSAR Team... I am a member of a SAR Team, which implies that I am part of an agency that provides all forms of SAR. Why was USAR handed over to FIRE? If we had not lived with this system forever, we would question this. Paramedics respond to medical calls. Firefighters respond to fires. Rescuers respond to SAR's. That is how it logically would make sense. In that system, SAR might actually be paid. Instead, in our system Paramedics respond to medical calls, Rescuers respond to searches, and firefighters respond to fires, medical calls, and rescues... "Jack of all trades... suck at them all"??? Rarely is this questioned. Ya, there is a reason why FIRE typically gets paid more than EMS and WAY MORE than SAR... they now do it all (or claim they can)... imagine how it could be if EMS, FIRE, and Rescue were separate disciplines... personally if I was in need of rescuing on the side of a cliff, I would prefer to have the Technical Specialists from SAR versus firefighters who "also have rescue certifications". That is why my SAR Team is subdivide into specialty teams (swiftwater, search, helicopter, technical, etc.); so that we can honestly say that "the SAR Team did not respond... the Swiftwater Team did, or the Search Team did".

NOTE: This rant is location specific and does not reflect the state of affairs in every region or state! Or maybe it does...

 

[wildmed]

While things differ from state to state, I agree. Although, I don't know what "charging for rescue" has to do with it. Fire Departments don't charge for fire fighting and yet firefighting is (or can be) a paid profession. And, technically, many states have laws that allow for the victims of a SAR to be billed later. In California the law states that if you needed SAR because you knowingly put yourself in a situation that was going to be bad, you can be charged; such as driving across a flooded road with "road closed" signs and needing Swiftwater to pull you out. Even if you needed SAR because "sh*t happens" the law allows the county SO to bill the county from which the victim lives, and there have been cases of that county passing the bill on to the victim.

But that is beside the point... more of a "different strokes for different states" type of thing...

I will say this about the current system: we are so use to it being the way it is that we do not question it... it is what it is. It is a "frog in boiling water" type thing. However, think of this: Many or maybe most county's have a Search & Rescue Team. That term implies that this agency provides Search & Rescue services... duh... Yet, many SAR Teams are not really what they claim to be. There was a paper written by a lawyer in the late 80's that I love... he got involved in SAR and analyzed the liabilities on the county, sheriff, the team, and the members. There was a lot of surprising things in the paper, but one thing to focus on here:

If you claim to be something, then you have to be it. What I mean is, how many SAR teams do search AND rescue? Many are little more than a search team claiming to be a SAR Team. Others provide some forms of rescue, but not comprehensively. That is a problem when two "SAR Teams" in neighboring counties provide different services to their respective counties; one county may be involved in swiftwater, but the other is not... in the paper, he noted instances where lawsuits were successful because they claimed to be a SAR Team, but did not provide the same services that several neighboring counties did... FALSE ADVERTISING!!! Now, I mention that for this reason: In another thread, mycrofft asked about online resources for SAR Training. He got two responses; one set for USAR and one set for WSAR. The fact is that if a county has a SAR Team, why is it assumed that they are the providers of WSAR only, while FIRE is generally viewed as the providers of USAR? I am not a member of a WSAR Team... I am a member of a SAR Team, which implies that I am part of an agency that provides all forms of SAR. Why was USAR handed over to FIRE? If we had not lived with this system forever, we would question this. Paramedics respond to medical calls. Firefighters respond to fires. Rescuers respond to SAR's. That is how it logically would make sense. In that system, SAR might actually be paid. Instead, in our system Paramedics respond to medical calls, Rescuers respond to searches, and firefighters respond to fires, medical calls, and rescues... "Jack of all trades... suck at them all"??? Rarely is this questioned. Ya, there is a reason why FIRE typically gets paid more than EMS and WAY MORE than SAR... they now do it all (or claim they can)... imagine how it could be if EMS, FIRE, and Rescue were separate disciplines... personally if I was in need of rescuing on the side of a cliff, I would prefer to have the Technical Specialists from SAR versus firefighters who "also have rescue certifications". That is why my SAR Team is subdivide into specialty teams (swiftwater, search, helicopter, technical, etc.); so that we can honestly say that "the SAR Team did not respond... the Swiftwater Team did, or the Search Team did".

NOTE: This rant is location specific and does not reflect the state of affairs in every region or state! Or maybe it does...

I think you make some good points here. I do have to admit that the two teams I keep referring to have a ~85% technical rescue based call volume, and neither of them have SAR in their title. Our uniforms don't say SAR, the say MOUNTAIN RESCUE, because thats what we are. Believe me, there are NO firefighters going off of any cliffs here. We also have a separate agencies that does all of our water rescue/ heavy rescue as well as a dog SAR team.
I disagree with you on some of the fire stuff, I think that fire fits in well in the heavy rescue/extrication roll. I do agree that swift water, dive,ice, technical rescue,Wilderness SAR, Urban SAR , Dog SAR should be provided by a separate rescue specific agency. Realistically though, this will never happen, and may not even be realistic do to the personnel intensive nature of these types of operations. I think having an elite core of paid personnel available via rescue helicopter a la central European countries is probably the way to go.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

I think you make some good points here. I do have to admit that the two teams I keep referring to have a ~85% technical rescue based call volume, and neither of them have SAR in their title. Our uniforms don't say SAR, the say MOUNTAIN RESCUE, because thats what we are. Believe me, there are NO firefighters going off of any cliffs here. We also have a separate agencies that does all of our water rescue/ heavy rescue as well as a dog SAR team.
I disagree with you on some of the fire stuff, I think that fire fits in well in the heavy rescue/extrication roll. I do agree that swift water, dive,ice, technical rescue,Wilderness SAR, Urban SAR , Dog SAR should be provided by a separate rescue specific agency. Realistically though, this will never happen, and may not even be realistic do to the personnel intensive nature of these types of operations. I think having an elite core of paid personnel available via rescue helicopter a la central European countries is probably the way to go.

Again... different state, different issues. Hear we have had many issues with jurisdictional lines getting blurred, FFs thinking that "Fire/Rescue" means that they are the end-all-be-all of rescue, and then making the situation worse. Clear jurisdiction is vital and if pure-rescue could be or should be a paid profession, than it should be a seperate specialized profession in the same way that EMS should be less "public safety" (lumped in with FIRE and LE) and more "medical care". Lines that get blurred create problems for those in the field that need those lines. But, again, maybe not the issue in some places that it is here. In the end, I know that being a great medic means focusing on that craft. I know that being a great firefighter means focusing on fire. There is no way I could be great at everything that my team is charged with, so i focus on ropes, swiftwater, search management, helicopter, and medical. Although I dabble in ATV and snowmobile, I leave dive, mounted, alpine, underground, and several other things alone, including fire, hazmat, vehicle extrication and other "FIRE jobs". To assume that anyone can do it all is arrogant and dangerous... I don't run into burning buildings because I am not trained or equipped, so why would a FF presume to initiate a ground search or jump into whitewater without the training and equipment (or, a big issue, try to run a technical call with absolutely no training, certification, equipment, or legal authority... something they have tried several times recently)? Why do people equate FIRE with Rescue and SAR with Search? Maybe the system in place is not correct (just familiar) and needs tweaking... and who knows... maybe paid SAR would be more common in my pipe dream world... then again, this is a topic that has resulted in several burned bridges for me, so maybe I should bite my tounge... lol... not a chance...

 

[onrope]

Again... different state, different issues. Hear we have had many issues with jurisdictional lines getting blurred, FFs thinking that "Fire/Rescue" means that they are the end-all-be-all of rescue, and then making the situation worse. Clear jurisdiction is vital and if pure-rescue could be or should be a paid profession, than it should be a seperate specialized profession in the same way that EMS should be less "public safety" (lumped in with FIRE and LE) and more "medical care". Lines that get blurred create problems for those in the field that need those lines. But, again, maybe not the issue in some places that it is here. In the end, I know that being a great medic means focusing on that craft. I know that being a great firefighter means focusing on fire. There is no way I could be great at everything that my team is charged with, so i focus on ropes, swiftwater, search management, helicopter, and medical. Although I dabble in ATV and snowmobile, I leave dive, mounted, alpine, underground, and several other things alone, including fire, hazmat, vehicle extrication and other "FIRE jobs". To assume that anyone can do it all is arrogant and dangerous... I don't run into burning buildings because I am not trained or equipped, so why would a FF presume to initiate a ground search or jump into whitewater without the training and equipment (or, a big issue, try to run a technical call with absolutely no training, certification, equipment, or legal authority... something they have tried several times recently)? Why do people equate FIRE with Rescue and SAR with Search? Maybe the system in place is not correct (just familiar) and needs tweaking... and who knows... maybe paid SAR would be more common in my pipe dream world... then again, this is a topic that has resulted in several burned bridges for me, so maybe I should bite my tounge... lol... not a chance...

So you have an idea of my experiences I am currently on a MRA team and paid FF. The biggest problem with SAR is the lack of standards. Sure MRA teams have to test in every discipline to stay "certified" but the average team is a sorry state of affairs. At least in CA all FF courses are taught to a certain standard set by the CSFM. When someone has a cert that says LARRO or RS1 you have a minimum level they were trained to. Most SAR teams have billy bob that tied some knots in boy scouts teaching "technical rescue" Most members treat it as a social club and refuse to spend time and money for real training. On the fire side this caused the demise of most Volly FDs. They wont staff up so the paid crew from county or the neighboring city has to respond out of district and handle the call. I have been on many calls that were SAR calls but fire ended up handling because we were on scene in 10 minutes with the manpower and equipment meanwhile 1.5 hours later SAR started to show up.

SAR is legally the responsibility of SO in CA. If this was changed I believe you would see fire take over as they already have USAR. Most Sheriffs Departments treat SAR like a red headed step child, not a good combo to breed success.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

So you have an idea of my experiences I am currently on a MRA team and paid FF. The biggest problem with SAR is the lack of standards. Sure MRA teams have to test in every discipline to stay "certified" but the average team is a sorry state of affairs. At least in CA all FF courses are taught to a certain standard set by the CSFM. When someone has a cert that says LARRO or RS1 you have a minimum level they were trained to. Most SAR teams have billy bob that tied some knots in boy scouts teaching "technical rescue" Most members treat it as a social club and refuse to spend time and money for real training. On the fire side this caused the demise of most Volly FDs. They wont staff up so the paid crew from county or the neighboring city has to respond out of district and handle the call. I have been on many calls that were SAR calls but fire ended up handling because we were on scene in 10 minutes with the manpower and equipment meanwhile 1.5 hours later SAR started to show up.

SAR is legally the responsibility of SO in CA. If this was changed I believe you would see fire take over as they already have USAR. Most Sheriffs Departments treat SAR like a red headed step child, not a good combo to breed success.

If you have read a previous post of mine in this thread, you will have noted that I am not happy with the "SAR Gods" right now. You just highlighted 95% of the reasons. I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but because of my background and experience with SAR, I have some varying conclusions and ideas; while fully certified, qualified, and experienced in a wide variety of SAR Disciplines, the fact is that I will never be as useful "in the field" as I am in an administrative and command post role... not always where I want to be, but I try not to fight it. But my focus on policy, procedure, and ensuring the overall success of the organization and mission, gives me a different view.

In my opinion, SAR is where FIRE was 40 years ago. You called many Teams "Social Clubs"; I refer to many of them as "Rotary Clubs", something that has helped me burn several bridges recently :glare:. But the underlying problem is as you say; good ol' boys running a club, and not a professional organization with standards. With FIRE Departments this is now the exception and not the norm, although they were far more common 40 years ago. SAR, being younger as an organized emergency response system, is where FIRE used to be. Just like the FIRE Departments were forced to move past that and meet a standard, that is also where SAR must go, in my opinion. But, the lack of call volume is a contributing factor in this lack of motivation to increase the standards, while the low standard is a contributing factor to why the calls volume is low; a catch 22. I have often used local Fire Departments that have been shut down as an example for SAR Teams; it is a fair analogy.

I believe that 75% of people in SAR have no business there; that they are their because "this will be a social club that will be fun to be part of". They keep the standards low. Then there are the other 25% that take it seriously. But, those few people are in the minority and exist in a culture that promotes the status quo. These few often fight to make things better, but usually just make themselves crazy... and leave... That is where I am at. Like you stated, standards are low. So, I set out to change that locally. Because of my administrative brain, I earned administrative positions that allowed me the authority to make changes, including a seat on the Executive Board as third in charge of the Team. I introduced four separate policies addressing these problems; a team training policy (we never had one, especially one that mandated people have certain certifications, attend specific basic training classes every year, and participate in a set amount of training a year), a Search Team Policy (mandating training and skill/knowledge assessment to a level that vastly surpassed the state's mutual aid guidelines for ground searchers and mantrackers, and placing some pretty advanced requirements for the management staff playing with me at the ICP), a Mounted Team Policy (again, vastly surpassing the state's guidelines and addressing some serious medical/horse care allegations leveled against the good ol' boy Mounted Members), and a Technical Rope Rescue Policy (that beyond requiring rope rescue certifications, mandated a set amount of yearly training and yearly qualification testing administered by any number of RQ3 Instructors we had on the team). The first three policies were accepted fairly easily, and then people started to realize that the words in the policies were actually going to be enforced (oh, my god...) and the last policy never made it, which sucks, because I already had several more policies and MOUs in the works addressing swiftwater, alpine/nordic, and intra-agency training. Could they have lived up to the "universal" team standards and selected specialty discipline standards? Yes, I made them perfectly attainable; but meeting the standards meant that you had to take SAR seriously and pull focus away from the Christmas Party and Team Campout. In addition, I am very proud of a Probationary Academy that I created and implemented after 2 years of work. Because it had been mandated in my training policy, I was allowed to put it into place. It was great... needed to be refined after the first time, but great potential to lay a wonderful foundation for new members serious about SAR, while the social club members would have been weeded out when they realized that a minimum 150 hours would be required just to get their feet wet. When my agenda to increase standards was revealed, I was targeted by the good ol' boys, and after a year of fights) resigned my positions before I killed them :glare: ... last I checked, the policies have been unofficially rescinded and the academy cancelled... :sad:

Again, with or without mandated standards, there exists 25% of SAR Members who will meet and exceed any standards that could be imposed on them. Most only want to train when the training is fun and will result in some cool pictures. As Training Officer, if I sent out a page for swiftwater or helicopter training, we would see members at the training I thought were dead! There was other training in medical, search, and even ropes were I had 2-4 people show up! Money, as you said, was another issue. They were willing to through $1,600 to send two members to swiftwater class, but were unwilling to spend $1,000 for 20 members to get 3 days of Mantracker Level 1 POST Certification!?!?!

That said, I take exception to the "billy bob" comment. If you look at the origins of rope rescue, swiftwater rescue, and helicopter rescue, you will find that SAR Responders developed the standards that were then adopted by FIRE Departments, changed slightly, and then proclaimed as "NFPA Standards in _____"... Whatever... I know this, because I was privileged enough to be trained by many of these old timers whose names are displayed in the various rescue textbooks utilized by FIRE and SAR nation-wide. The college 5 minutes from my SAR Cache was the location of the first Swiftwater Class in the U.S.... taught in the late 70's by 3 (as in Rescue 3) pioneers of the craft. At the recent retirement of one such old timer, a Battalion Chief got up and recounted several helicopter and rope rescues that had occurred around the nation in the last few months, and told the crowd of educators, firefighters, and SAR members, "those firefighters and rescuers on the ropes and in the helicopters were practicing skills that were developed by this man... as a result, he has saved more lives than we can ever understand... however, most rescuers performing those rescues and most victims who benefit will never take the time to realize the history of the craft that resulted in that saved life..." I was honored to be trained by those people in swiftwater, rope, and helicopter rescue. However, generally speaking, they were against the bast*rdization of their curriculum by the NFPA and CSFM. In fact, I would say that having taken many NFPA and CSFM courses, what I was taught by those old timers in training was vastly superior. Remember, there is a difference between certification and qualification. A new EMT that just got his card today has the same card I have. We are equally certified... but even if my card was expired by one day, I would still be more qualified. Certification only implies that a base level of knowledge as been imparted, but it is the supplemental training, continued refinement of skills, and experience that imparts qualification, something that no card in my wallet can measure. This is why, while my team requires Low Angle Certification, I demanded a yearly qualification testing in my policies. I took my low angle over 10 years ago and wouldn't remember a thing if not for the fact that I have done hundreds of hours of refresher and increasingly advanced training since, and have experienced rope calls that made it all real.

On that note, standards in SAR do exist... be that MRA standards, NASAR standards, state guidelines, or county/agency specific policy... it is a mater of "if an agency follows them". I do not believe in universal standards. How can you take anything and say that it can be equally applied to geographic regions that are so different... lets say Los Angles County versus Alpine County? While I agree that standards must be met, there must be variations based on region. The goal is to have realistic standards that meet the needs of the region you are expected, as a professional, to serve. In that regard, I like the State Mutual Aid Guidelines for SAR. It is important to provide a minimal standard for responders going to another county. Prior to those guidelines, many horror stories exist when agencies requested mutual aid. We have several, such as a request made for ground searchers and mounted teams over 10 years ago. We had a group of Bay Area Searchers who had to be rescued themselves because they were not ready for elevations of 9,000+ feet and weer not equipped to survive overnight. We had Sheriff's Posse folks from the valley who showed up for the same search wearing red and white tassels and on their "parade apparel". :rofl: However, no team is required to meet those standard for response in their own county. I believe they should be; the standards are low enough. Any SAR Member worth their salt will exceed those standards in a second.

In my opinion, these are the reasons why SAR is the bast*rd step child of Emergency Services. We are simply far younger and going through he same things that FIRE did oh-so-long-ago; the difference being that FIRE didn't have an "older brother" looking over their shoulder, trying to hinder their development. That is what FIRE is to SAR. The problem in that is: FIRE can never take over SAR like some would want; legally or functionally. There have been, in the past, attempts at the state level to change the law and covert SAR from a LE function to a FIRE responsibility. Despite the political power FIRE had to make it happen, they couldn't realistically do it. They can take Rescue away, but not Search. Simple fact is that search requires investigative skills and resources that dictates that Law Enforcement must be in charge. Regardless of circumstances (accident or criminal) these are "missing persons" calls that require investigation... and a fair number turn out to be criminal. Whats more, it is nearly impossible to add the search, survival, tracking, navigation, snowmobile, atv dog, mountaineering, etc training to the plethora of training demanded of firefighters already and then pull hundreds of firefighters from their stations in the middle of fire season for a 3 day search in the middle of no-where. Logistically, it would be difficult, and FIRE has generally accepted that. Further, there can be no such thing as a pure search team. Such a concept is STUPID! Taking into account the acronym LAST, how can anyone be charged and trained to locate the victim(s), but be incapable to access, stabilize, and transport them? That is why even the state's minimal Ground Search Guidelines require some medical, ropes, and helicopter abilities. Personally, I can't see running a search in my county without having medical, swiftwater, technical, nordic, and helicopter qualifications at minimum... There is just too much terrain to search where those skills are needed not just for my safety, but to rescue the victim. It will always be "SAR", and never just "S". So while FIRE can take rescue on, they can never take it away. In fact, I would point out that technically, FIRE can not take any aspect of Search or Rescue away unilaterally:

After years of problems, in 2004, California AB 2031 amended Section 26614 of the Government Code to define what SAR is and who provides SAR Services. While the Sheriff is responsible for "searching for and rescuing persons who are lost or are in danger of their lives", the law mandated that a "SAR Operating Plan" be in place for every county which would allow for certain SAR Services to be handed over to the Fire Department or other appropriate agency. Handing over selected services was at the discretion of the Sheriff and County Board of Supervisors based on function. What that means is that if the Fire Department was in a better position to provide the service and wanted to take the service over (or simply offer the service in addition to the SAR Response) it must be written into the SAR Response Plan. When a county writes this plan, there are supposed to use the model plans provided by the state. Some quotes from these documents:

Both departments agree that SAR resources are generally designed to access victims utilizing equipment and personnel transported by foot or unconventional vehicles. SAR’s strengths are in its ability to reach and operate in locations remote from vehicular access and in its members’ personal self-sufficiency – even during prolonged operational periods in dangerous weather. F/R resources are generally designed to be truck-based. F/R’s strengths are in its rapid deployment and availability of heavy rescue and fire suppression equipment.

Even though the majority of incidents are multi-jurisdictional, generally either the SAR or the F/R team is best qualified on the hazards of a specific incident.

The first agency to arrive on scene should immediately assess the situation. If the incident requires specialized skills, equipment, or training not possessed by the initial agency, the agency classified for that type of incident should be notified, including all pertinent information. Whenever either agency is notified of a SAR or a F/R incident that does not fall under their classification, they will immediately notify the other agency, in addition to any other appropriate agency.

This agreement does not prevent an agency from responding to an incident that is not in their primary classification in order to act in a support role, or be on standby.

The MOU that is supposed to accompany this Plan further defines roles. The idea is that even if the Sheriff is responsible for SAR, if FIRE can provide a faster response AND maintains the skills and equipment to mitigate the incident, then maybe they should. But deciding if this is the case can only be done county-by-county. In some counties FIRE has authority over ropes, swiftwater, dive, etc. In other counties, the Sheriff does. Neither is right or wrong, just needed for that county. For instance, for my county and neighboring mountian counties, FIRE could never realistically take over swiftwater; their response, while faster, wouldn't matter, but would just tie up FIRE resources for days of swiftwater searching in the middle of fire season... As a result of logical reasons like this, the local SAR Operating Plan MOU states:

WHEREAS, SHERIFF recognizes FIRE as the primary agency with jurisdictional authority and/or functional responsibility to provide services with respect to fire suppression, vehicle extractions, low angle rope rescue, and snowmobile medical first responder services for snowmobile accidents with injuries in the unincorporated areas and cities served by FIRE; and

WHEREAS, FIRE recognizes SHERIFF as the primary agency with jurisdictional authority and functional responsibility to provide search & rescue, search for missing, injured, or lost persons, mine rescue, cave rescue, wilderness low and high angle rope rescue, swiftwater rescue, dive rescue or recovery, helicopter rescue or water rescue, downed aircraft, and investigation of incidents that may involve criminal acts…”

Regardless of how fast FIRE can respond, the question is, are they best suited to respond? The law allows each county to decide this. But once the decision is made, no agency can unilaterally decide what it will and won't do. That said, I believe that if SAR learned to get it's act together, live up to a standard, and was assisted by the Sheriff and FIRE in being legit, SAR would find itself in a better position to handle the types of rescues that FIRE has taken over in many of the more urban areas. It seems to me that everyone has forgotten one thing, something that is highlighted by the SAR Operating Plan:

Because the primary goal is the well-being of the victim, interagency cooperation is paramount.

That is why, despite my anger over some things locally with SAR and FIRE, I have not given up... just diverted my focus. I have distanced myself administratively from the political issues to reduce liability, but refuse to leave SAR. Currently I have accepted a position as a Special Resource for the Sheriff's Office. Because I possess certain unique skills and abilities, I am available to response to calls where those skills are needed or desired. I am one of only 7 Certified Search Managers in the county, one of only 2 Certified and Qualified persons to assume IC on a Swiftwater Search, the only person versed in GIS Applications for the Planning Section on any call, one of only 5 EMTs qualified to act in a medical role during helicopter rescues such as short haul situations, and I have the only trailing dog in the county. For the well-being of the victim I CAN NOT allow a low level of standards in SAR to force me to shelve those skills and abilities. Thankfully there remains that 25% who feels the same way, trains their azzes off, and waits until things change...



BTW... I think I like you... Sierra Madre? Montose?