[TNham] NIMS Training, even for dogs

Mon May 22 10:52:19 EDT 2006

May I chime in from Southern Kentucky?

The NIMS thing has gone universal.  It's not
just for ham volunteers.
The required training classes (NIMS) even go
for animal rescuers.  Recently I was at Nashville
Red Cross doing classes for "Animals In Disasters"
which sprang up from the Katrina fiasco.  TN is
far ahead of KY in working to save animals that
are abandoned or injured in disasters.  Congrats
TN for looking ahead!

The training required included several NIMS sets.
Once the certifications are in place there is to
be an ID card issued.  Without the ID card you
don't get in to do your thing.

I have to assume that ham participation  IF it
requires going somewhere to do something will
also require that ID card/badge.    Earning that
ID card  might be considered like earning your
ham ticket.    Some folks do it because they
enjoy it  and some could care less.

This doesn't start with ARRL nationally nor in
any state, but is handed down from the Feds.
They got a real black eye in Katrina and worry
that untrained "anywhere" will cause more
problems than help.    As an aside di you notice
that Ray Nagin was re-elected as Mayor of New
Orleans - he has promised to take the NIMS....

It is my best guess that uncertified hams, at
home, will still be taking traffic out of disaster
areas just as always.   Those taking the rather
simple and easy NIMS stuff will be able to do
more if they wish.

Thanks for your time.     Joe Taylor  N4NAS
                                   Glasgow, KY

>>Joe <<   n4nas1 at hotmail.com

>From: tnham-request at mailman.qth.net
>Reply-To: tnham at mailman.qth.net
>To: tnham at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: TNham Digest, Vol 23, Issue 8
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 04:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Send TNham mailing list submissions to
>	tnham at mailman.qth.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tnham
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	tnham-request at mailman.qth.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	tnham-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of TNham digest..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: EMCOMM requirement (Greg Williams)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:12:42 -0400
>From: Greg Williams <k4hsm at lock-net.com>
>Subject: Re: [TNham] EMCOMM requirement
>To: 'tnham' <tnham at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <44713A3A.2070200 at lock-net.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Mr. Floyd:
>
>Thanks for replying with some of my questions answered.
>
>I understand that the government would want all volunteers to receive
>proper training on who does what in an emergency.  Like the Boy Scouts,
>we should "be prepared", that much is given.  In fact, over the weekend,
>I went to the FEMA web site (http://emilms.fema.gov/) and took IS-100,
>IS-700, and IS-800.
>
>Because it was free.
>
>Now then, your response regarding who is requiring us to take EMCOMM
>states that:
>
>This is the AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS of the Tennessee Section of the ARRL
>moving forward by taking on additional training so that we can better
>serve our communities.
>
>So this is basically YOU requiring us to take this course, am I
>correct?  Why not just say it?
>
>I can only think that this will backfire and do so quickly.  Not because
>I'm out there "ranting and throwing a hissy fit" and "being a crybaby".
>But because people are not going to feel very much like wanting to offer
>help when they don't think they have the right qualifications.
>
>You say there are no plans to exclude anyone, yet without this training,
>what are we going to do?  We can't be called upon when, heaven forbid, a
>disaster happens.  Can we "non-certifieds" go to the shelters to set
>up?  Go to the Red Cross building to man the station?  Offer support in
>some other area?  What good would we be?  It's a gut-punching feeling
>when it's told to us like, "You can come to the meetings and check in to
>the nets, but you're not going to be much good to us other than that if
>you don't take the course."
>
>So that's the way it is. I guess the only way to know what the
>repercussions are is to let this play out.  I have not and will not
>hinder anyone's effort into getting the EMCOMM certification, but I hope
>that by making them aware of what is happening, that they can make the
>right decisions and do what they feel is best for them and their
>volunteer spirit.  I obviously wouldn't look down on anyone for taking
>the course, so I should hope the ARRL, Homeland Security, and ARES would
>not look down on someone for not taking the course, whatever the reason,
>be it financial or otherwise.
>
>Perhaps there is a way so that many like myself can get "the precious"
>and be right in the eyes of ARES, ARRL, and the almighty himself.  I
>cannot personally think of any way that this would be possible other
>than a government grant.  But I am not one who would know where to
>begin.  Perhaps a brainstorming session would be needed for that one.
>
>I'm not one to try and prevent the certification from happening, and I
>hope I have not conveyed that opinion.  I'm just not inclined to spend
>the money for taking it, especially since I practice emergency
>communications on a regular basis with SKYWARN.  Many aren't inclined to
>take the training at all, especially when we are the only emergency
>service in all the fleet that would be requiring a paid certification to
>keep in good standing with the government - on our own initiative.
>Having seen what the government has done in the last 20 years during
>disasters, we might be the only ones who know what we're doing anyways.
>But what good will it be for the average ham who might be new to the
>hobby/service of ham radio, or might be a veteran communicator with
>years of experience and little money?  Being told you're just not good
>enough can take a lot of wind out of your sails.
>
>And finally I leave you with this.  The means for getting this
>information out in the open in the first place were rather
>uncharacteristic, no?  I mean, some lil' guy has to spread the word on
>an email list because many others in the state (EC's DEC's, etc,) didn't
>know themselves or didn't think to tell them.  Or didn't want to tell
>them perhaps?  The same thing happened 3 years ago as well.  One would
>think that, for a communications group like ourselves, we didn't have
>good communication on this.  It just kinda crept up on us "last-minute"
>it looked.  Not a good way to communicate a requirement on this level,
>but that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
>
>I wish you and yours all the best.
>
>Gregory S. Williams
>K4HSM
>k4hsm at etskywarn.net
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>TNham mailing list
>TNham at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tnham
>
>
>End of TNham Digest, Vol 23, Issue 8
>************************************