Clyde Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I heard a report on the news tonight about a fire dept called out to rescue a dog who was stuck in a frozen/semi-frozen pond. Is that really a good use of our tax dollars? Are they any valid scenarios for Fire to come and help an animal?
Randy Parker Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Did they used to help get cats out of trees or is that just a Hollywood cliche?
The Scribe Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Our society values animals these days as much if not more than humans.
halfback20 Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I'm sure the owner of the dog was glad to have the help. And the fire department was probably getting paid either way, right? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Guest Birdflu Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I'm sure the owner of the dog was glad to have the help. And the fire department was probably getting paid either way, right? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It would have been a big deal if there was a fire happening while they were rescuing the dog. Plus, a fireman could have been injured falling through the ice. I don't think it is a proper use of resources.
Bluegrasscard Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 As long as they do not interfere with human life and property threatening runs I bet the departments like them for a couple of reasons. a) Live training where the consequences are reduced if they fail and b) it ups the number of runs they make and when they report their activity for funding it gives them higher metrics.
2 Humped Camel Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 It would have been a big deal if there was a fire happening while they were rescuing the dog. Plus, a fireman could have been injured falling through the ice. I don't think it is a proper use of resources. I am sure that if a fire was happening the dog would be left on his own and that if the fire department didn't have the know how and equipment to safely rescue the dog they wouldn't have made an attempt. I have no problem with it at all.
halfback20 Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 It would have been a big deal if there was a fire happening while they were rescuing the dog. Plus, a fireman could have been injured falling through the ice. I don't think it is a proper use of resources. 1.) someone else said this, but there is nothing stopping them from leaving and going to the fire. 2.) they chose to go get the dog. No one forced them. If he got injured I'd say he/she knew the consequences. Also we could if all day but none of that happened as far as I know. What if they wreck on the way to go get lunch and then a house catches on fire? No more lunches for fire fighters? I also agree with the poster who said it was a great training opportunity. I'm also sure the owner of the dog is a tax payer who got their money's worth.
lawildcat Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Shouldn't we value all life; not just human? Departments back each other up so if one is not available for a true emergency, another city will jump in. While it may be a waste of tax dollars, if it was your dog, you would be hoping for the National Guard to fly in!
Clyde Posted February 4, 2013 Author Posted February 4, 2013 It's not free to run trucks. In a frozen pond situation it seems we're putting a fireman in a potentially dangerous positon over a dog. Many counties struggle with timely coverage. Had a real fire involving real humans come up it's possible the fire department's response time will be slower. It's probable. They have to put any gear used back on the truck. They might be farther away from the fire than they would have been had they stayed at the firehouse. If I was chief there would be no dog rescues.
jolmstead Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 There is also a community relations element to consider. Fire Department Vehicles and personnell are made available at city and private events to cultivate positive relationships in the community. I don't view this situation as being any different.
UKMustangFan Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 People really do like to complain about anything and everything these days....Just sad.
Clyde Posted February 4, 2013 Author Posted February 4, 2013 People really do like to complain about anything and everything these days....Just sad. You'd be the first one screaming if you found out the fire dept showed up late to YOUR house because they were out on a pond helping a dog.
halfback20 Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 It's not free to run trucks. In a frozen pond situation it seems we're putting a fireman in a potentially dangerous positon over a dog. Many counties struggle with timely coverage. Had a real fire involving real humans come up it's possible the fire department's response time will be slower. It's probable. They have to put any gear used back on the truck. They might be farther away from the fire than they would have been had they stayed at the firehouse. If I was chief there would be no dog rescues. The dog owner is probably a tax payer too. I pay taxes and I've never needed the fire department. But Id be glad to see them save a dog if possible. Doesn't bother me one bit that they used my tax dollars to do it. As for the decision making going into rescuing the dog...I'm not a fire fighter there. I don't know the call volume, how many fire fighters they have available, or how much of an area they cover. It's possible that they had several other firemen on standby incase of another call.
halfback20 Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 You'd be the first one screaming if you found out the fire dept showed up late to YOUR house because they were out on a pond helping a dog. Do you know that there weren't other firemen available for call?
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.