Had a conversation with Dave Jensen, W7DGJ the other day, in response to his recent article, Trials and Errors Issue #29: More Hero Hams -- the 1937 Ohio River Valley Flood
I will suggest reading the article at the link before we go on.
Now, I know, there's been a lot of chatter about this over the last few years. I admit I take a different approach to the topic than many hams do. I tell Dave, in my response at QRZ:
A couple of things strike me about the editorial.
First the subject of regimentation of amateurs came up, regimentation of
amateurs by government, the regimentation of response to emergency
situations.
The editorial rightly states that emergencies are totally
unpredictable. And, that's true.... Very obviously so. Indeed, in my
opinion that's what makes them emergencies. Thereby, making a regimented
response worse than useless in many if not most cases.
At the risk of sounding political, emergency planning by government is
essentially impossible, thereby. Mind you, I'm not talking about one
government or another, I'm talking about any government. Any government
entity, any government individual attempting to plan such things except
in the broadest of terms is destined for failure. And yet, they keep
trying to do precisely that, in an apparent desire to maintain the power
of control in their hands not in those of the volunteers. You know, the
ones that are actually doing the work.
I suggest that the writings about this incident prove one thing that
many people will wish they don't: training & regimentation is
neither possible nor desirable in emergency situations and the people
that are the most effective in those situations generally are simply
doing what they can do, not necessarily what pre-planning by
authorities, and regimentation has brought them to.
I suggest that a look at the volunteer fire companies around the country
of 50 years ago versus what we have now, while perhaps not directly
comparable, is instructive.
50 years ago most areas of the country had fire companies that were
staffed by people who are completely volunteer. These days, as time has
gone on fire companies have become professional organizations
represented by unions in many cases.
The volunteer .... And with it, alas, the spirit of volunteerism, has
essentially been erased under the weight of the attitude of "let the
professionals do it".
As a result of this progression, many fire companies are left wanting for staff.
One could certainly argue that we are better protected by such a shift,
at least in the more heavily populated areas because of the training and
regimentation. (Well, at least government believes so...) But there
are so many holes in those lines as to make that argument at least a bit
more difficult.
Is this where amateur radio is headed as regards emergency response? And this brings us to our second point:
The league has been using emergency response ability as a lever, (one of
several) as a means of justifying our operating privileges or
frequencies and so on.
The negative effect on amateur radio of downplaying our emergency role
is obvious and quite probably devastating, both from the standpoint of
"let the professionals do it, it's not my job". (see also, "ham radio
is not an emergency service", and the usual jibes about the "yellow
jacket crowd".)
And thus needful things not getting done in a timely fashion in an emergency situation...
And also, from the standpoint of being able to maintain those operating
privileges. Governments want some return for their investments. That's
simply how things are these days. They need to know when time to
regulate spectrum comes along, when questions of local zoning boards
regulating antenna structures, of our ability and willingness to throw a
shoulder where needed. Down playing that role, as I have seen happen so
often here on the Zed, runs directly counter to that purpose.
Dave responds, in part:
I love this line from that ARRL editorial, "The very greatness of our
performance early this year now attracts many agencies who would like to
commandeer, direct us, and so on. Let them understand that this service comes from us, of our own volition as free agents. We shall want to help them all as much as we can, but of our own accord and not by direction."
Friends, the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of
Americanism.
The message is that it is the individuals, not the government,
that makes us great. Too often, those in government have either
neglected or actively worked against that spirit. Does anyone
suppose that editorial could have been written by the League today,
much less be lauded by it's members?
. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
members?
. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
members?
. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
members?
. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
members?
the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of
Americanism. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
membe
the message sent in that paragraph is the very essence of
Americanism. The message is that it is the individuals, not the government that makes us
great. Too often, those in government have either neglected or actively
worked against that spirit.. Does anyone suppose that editorial could
have been written by the League today, much less be lauded by it's
members?