FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO SAVE PETS

[uncommon]

Can we stop hearing this already? Pets are NOT people. I love mine, but I would never EVER expect a firefighter to risk his/her life over a pet.

Find another damn meme.

/rant

[Lucian]

1. Saving lives is a firefighter's job.

Can we dump this firefighter shit already? It got old two days ago.

[Statistical]

58. Saving HUMAN lives is fire fighters job.

Demanding a human risk his/her life to save an animal is not acceptable.

[jgraz]

91. Explain the difference.

BONUS: Try to do it without invoking God.

[Statistical]

98. Same reason we can own pets but not own people.

Same reason if you kill a person you are looking at murder but if you kill an animal you are looking (maybe) at cruelty to animals charge.
Same reason we have no problem with eating animal flesh but society tends to frown upon eating human flesh.
Same reason we kill unwanted animals but doing so to people is beyond what society considers acceptable.
Same reason we kill animals that attack men but don't kill men who attack animals.

Society for reasons beyond just religion or spirituality consider human life to be more sacred than other animal life. Thus a human risking his life to save another human can be a reasonable expectation, expecting one to risk human life to save an animinal life is not.

[jgraz]

107. So, in other words, just because.

Awesome reasoning, that. :eyes:

[Statistical]

109. You didn't ask why we consider animal life less sacred you asked why save human lies.

The answer:

"Society for reasons beyond just religion or spirituality consider human life to be more sacred than other animal life. Thus a human risking his life to save another human can be a reasonable expectation, expecting one to risk human life to save an animinal life is not."

[jgraz]

115. Or try this:

"Society for reasons beyond just religion or spirituality consider white people to be more sacred than black people. Thus a white man risking his life to save another white man can be a reasonable expectation, expecting one to risk a white man to save a black man is not."

or this


"Society for reasons beyond just religion or spirituality consider men to be more sacred than women. Thus a man risking his life to save another man can be a reasonable expectation, expecting one to risk a man to save a woman is not."


or this


"Society for reasons beyond just religion or spirituality consider Christians to be more sacred than non-Christians. Thus a Christian risking his life to save another Christian can be a reasonable expectation, expecting one to risk a Christian to save a non-Christian is not."


All of these beliefs were part of "society" at one point in our history. How are they different from your statement?

[Statistical]

117. Viewpoints do change ... however i expect the status quo (my statement)

to be in effect for at least my lifetime (if not for a couple centuries).

You didn't ask the question WHY does society think that you ask WHY is it an obligation to save human life.
I answered the question you asked.

If you are now asking WHY do we place more value on human life then other forms of life....
I don't know. The reality is we do and we likely will for at least the foreseeable future.

[jgraz]

119. I'm asking the same question in every post

Which is: why do YOU think that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life?

Or do you think that? Would you choose to pull Dick Cheney from a burning building instead of your pet? I know which one I'd pick.

[DrDan]

133. speaking of Dick Cheney - seems to me those opposing the OP are in the same

camp as that cretin.

A lot of brave talk when someone else's life is at stake.

[jgraz]

142. Yes, that's about the silliest response anyone could possibly post

Congratulations, you win the prize.

[DrDan]

218. oh really . . .

have you read these posts?

There are those that EXPECT a firefighter to risk their lives, perhaps leaving spouses and children behind, to save a pet.

Isn't that exactly what cheney and junior did? Did they not send our military into a war based on lies and personal agendas? Did they not EXPECT the military to sacrifice themselves for their personal gain?

[jgraz]

249. Wrong on so many levels

It's impossible to enumerate them all so I'll give you one: under your analogy, Cheney is an arsonist. Unless someone is advocating that firefighters risk their lives putting out fires that the subject deliberately set, your comparison is crap.

[DrDan]

253. well . ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9282424

[WinkyDink]

114. Sorry if you don't distinguish between pets and human beings. How's your flea collar?

[jgraz]

118. Do you really need this explained?

Saying two things have comparable worth (for any definition of "worth") is different from saying they're exactly the same thing. I really didn't expect that this would need to be explicitly outlined for most people to understand the core of this conversation.

Before we proceed, are there any other basic concepts I need to explain to you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. Yes, actually. Just because. Because people are more important. n/t

[jgraz]

143. "Just because" -- justification for almost any prejudice you desire.

[Scout]

152. you can either save your child, or your dog, but not both...

no waffling now, no squirming ... you cannot save both, and the one you don't save WILL die, and you cannot squirm out by saying you'd die with your child ... you must choose and live with the choice and justify it.

CHOOSE

[jgraz]

162. You can either save your son or your daughter, but not both

no waffling now, no squirming ... you cannot save both, and the one you don't save WILL die, and you cannot squirm out by saying you'd die with your children ... you must choose and live with the choice and justify it.


And remember, I will be using your answer to accuse you of valuing one gender more than another.

[justanaverageguy]

169. I will gladly answer that question

Between my daughter and son, and I could only save one, it would be a completely random choice not a judgment that is indicative of valuing one over the other as I value them equally in every way. The scenario you present leaves me in a predetermined situation in which regardless of what or whom I value one of the children will die. Therefore my choice is a flip of the coin.

This hypothetical is not analogous to a like scenario involving a pet vs. human or even another human vs. my own child because my motivation to save one over the other is completely based on valuing one life over the other. I make no bones about it. I value your human life over that of an animal, but value my own kid's life over yours or even my own.

[jgraz]

173. Well, I have no kids, so I can't honestly answer the question.

But it's not a fair question because the choice would not be made based on any intrinsic value of one life over the other. It would be based on a personal choice between two beings that I know and love.

What I can say is that I know very few people who would even give me pause in that situation. In most cases, I would save my pet without a second thought. My girlfriend and I have actually had this conversation and we both would rather have our pets saved than ourselves.

Of course, in our case, our pets are parrots who will live to be 40 or 50 and have the intelligence of a three-year-old child. If it came down to my girlfriend and our deaf, blind and incontinent 14-year-old poodle, I'd likely make a different choice.

And that's the point. There's no inherent value of an abstract human life over an abstract animal's. If I'm the one who gets to play God, the humans are more than likely going to lose.

[justanaverageguy]

258. if you truly believe what you are saying then how do you

distinguish between someone like Adolf Hitler and your local exterminator. I mean if you do not value human life anymore than animals then logic and reason dictate that you must view both Hitler and the local Orkin man as equals.

I do not view them as equals simply because killing the rats in my basement is not the same killing the Jews that live in my neighborhood.

Also I have to ask....you run into your burning house. There on the floor is your injured girlfriend and next to her the bird cage. You mean to tell me that you would first get the birds to safety at the risk of her life? That indicates to me that you have no real value of human life. How could you ever criticize a corporation for not valuing human life over profit when you yourself don't even value the life of the woman you love (to some extent I assume) over that of an animal that is completely incapable of loving you back.

[lumberjack_jeff]

175. It's not a slippery slope, it's absolute value. Pets < People. n/t

[jgraz]

178. Nope. My pets > almost any person

I have exactly as much justification for my view as you do for yours.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. No there isn't.

People are stakeholders of the society we've created.

And your pets are not > my children. Avoid, at all cost, testing your belief.

Pets are to people as plants are to the sun.

[jgraz]

184. On a thread where many of the posts make no sense

I think your post just set a new low. I don't think it's possible for something to make less sense than what you just posted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. How could I clarify?

People are demonstrably of more social value than pets. The belief otherwise will get you in trouble.

You might perceive them as more important to you, personally, but even that reflects a huge misanthropic blind spot, unless your dog is able to provide you employment, bring you food or keep the electricity flowing to your apartment.

Is it the words or the grammar that is causing the trouble?

[jgraz]

196. There are many people of demonstrably LESS social value than pets.

There are many people of demonstrably less social value than E Coli.

To suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

Your argument basically boils down to the Dominionist view that people are better because God says so. You can invent any bogus criteria you want, but you're not saying anything new or profound.

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. Is it "some" or "almost any"?

In this human society, the humans are more important than their pets.

[jgraz]

199. How many ways are you going to dress up the "because I say so" argument?

Oh wait... you're not even trying to dress it up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

202. I say so because it is so. It needs no dressing. n/t

[jgraz]

215. No you say so because you believe it to be so

And it's a belief that you've never bothered to examine closely. Or at all.

[Caretha]

192. To be honest

if your house was burning down and you told me you had a pet inside, and it looked pretty iffy if I could rescue your pet and stay alive, I'd choose stay alive every single time.

Then I'd give you a gift certificate to an animal shelter to save a pet's life instead of having it exterminated.

Sound like a deal?

[jgraz]

194. Um, you're lecturing the wrong person about animal rescue

I work at least 40 hours a week on animal rescue. I currently have 7 rescue parrots sharing my house, and I spend most of my weekend educating people on how to care for the birds we rehabilitate.

I'd never expect anyone to sacrifice themselves for me OR my pets. The discussion has become one of intrinsic value one species over another, and one side is, pardon the pun, parroting the Dominionist view that "people are just better, so there!" I simply disagree with that assertion.

And if you really think that the loss of a pet can be remedied with a gift certificate, I'd suggest you might want to spend some time developing a sense of compassion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

198. I think you're being lectured, with some justification, about human rescue. n/t

[jgraz]

200. You might want to try reading that post again.

Go ahead, give it another look-see. We'll wait.

[Caretha]

201. Kudos to you for

being involved in animal rescue, but you are a very silly man if you believe that a human should sacrifice his life to save someone's pets.

If the rescue can be done without an unreasonable amount of danger to that said human's life, so be it. But to believe otherwise is simply ridiculous, and I stand by what I said.

[jgraz]

214. I never said that humans "should" do anything

In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

My objection is with the assumption that there's something inherent in our species that makes every human more intrinsically valuable than every non-human.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

225. I've read through the whole chain of replies.

Why can't you just state your argument in a logical manner? :sarcasm:

I give you props, and am really amazed how tangentially the conversation becomes skewed.

[backwoodsbob]

222. anyone here who knows me AT ALL..

Knows I cherish my three dogs like children.BUT..I wouldn't want a firefighter to die trying to rescue them.I DO value human life over other animals.Sorry but that's how it is.

[11 Bravo]

234. Ever stepped on an ant? If so, please proceed to the nearest police station ...

and confess. Hell, I'm feeling generous, so I'll let you cop to involuntary manslaughter.

[jgraz]

250. And the silly post contest continues.

A worthy effort on your part. Impressive, even.

[ThomasQED]

154. You don't own your pet.

You may think you do, but you don't.

[WinkyDink]

112. Humans don't need pets. Try that in reverse.

[jgraz]

122. So children are inherently less valuable than adults

The handicapped are inherently less valuable than able-bodied people.

You are inherently less valuable than a plant. Or air.


Man, I hope you're not a first responder. :eyes:

[justanaverageguy]

132. the simple answer to you question is YES

Try being a 65 year old handicap person in need of a kidney transplant. Trust me the otherwise able bodied 20 year old is going to get priority of you because at this point we value their life more than yours. It may be an ugly truth....but true none the less.

The simple fact is not only do we value human lives over animal lives....we value some human lives over other humans. If you and my kid were both drowning and I could only save one of you, you would die. Like it or not I value my kid's life over yours.

[lukasahero]

134. That doesn't answer the question you were asked

Just to recall, your point was "Humans don't need pets. Try that in reverse."

That point was then challenged since you put the value of a pet on the basis that they depend on humans to survive, does the same criteria apply to children who depend on adults for survival?

[justanaverageguy]

140. I made no such point

I think you are confusing me with WinkyDink.

However, I don't value the life of a pet on the basis that they depend on humans to survive, because most pets don't unless they are held in some captivity by said human. I can let my cat out in the middle of the woods and it would likely survive. It doesn't need me. The fact that some pets require their human owners to survive is completely irrelevant to this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

So the same criteria for me wouldn't apply to a child vs Adult.

The reason I generally value a human's life over a pets life is so self evident to me that I have a difficult time explaining why. It would be like trying to explain why I find Jennifer Aniston sexy but Brad Pitt?.....Not so much....I just do.

I was merely answering the post to which I replied that had asked about valuing some human lives over others, such as someone who is handicapped vs. able bodied. We do in fact sometimes value some human lives over others.

[jgraz]

216. This point gets dumber the more you think about it

Any of our pets, if they weren't held captive in our homes, would do just fine without us. They would do even better if we hadn't bred them to be docile and child-like.

Our pets don't need us at all. On the other hand, there are many humans who get incredible benefits from their pets.

[mkultra]

233. human life has greater value than animal life

This is a belief that almost every culture that has ever existed believes for various reasons. If you are saying that you think that human life and animal life are equal, I say the onerous is on you to describe why.

[alphafemale]

159. Expecting a person to go in and rescue an animal at the risk of life and leaving orphans?

If they choose to go before there is real risk to themselves it's one thing.

And yes...gasp...

I do consider human life more valuable than animal life.

At some of these posters logic lets take this out along their illogical thought process.

If a life is a life.,,not only is a dog or a cat a life equal to a human life...but viruses and bacteria are also equal lives. Don't you DARE get a flu vaccine this year. Those little life-threatening parasitic lives are just as important as yours!

[mainer]

219. Maybe if dead firemen left orphaned pets, it would make sense to some?

Who cares if the firemen leave behind fatherless kids. But his pets, oh my god, his poor pets!

[alphafemale]

251. snark seen and appreciated

:hi:

[Xithras]

190. There isn't a FD in the country that requires firefighters to risk their lives for an animal.

And there are quite a few that will fire them for doing so, because it's considered reckless behavior.

Most FD's have simple rules for this sort of thing. If you can get in and save the animals without putting yourself in serious danger, do it. If saving the animals will put human lives at great risk, then don't.

It's really that simple.

[Vinca]

2. Maybe the firefighters could spray me with water as I search my house for a pet.

[Enrique]

3. i smell popcorn burning

:popcorn:

[LynneSin]

43. I hope you paid your $75 firefighter fee or you'll be going down in flames while we watch

:hide:

[JVS]

209. ... and your little dog too!

[sabrina 1]

4. Firefighters don't have to risk their lives to save pets if they

put out fires before they become unmanageable. If they do that, pets will survive without any risk for the FF.

[seabeyond]

6. you have no dead pets if an owner takes pets out of house before fire reaches house. nt

[joeybee12]

14. Ever try to nab a very scared cat...good luck with finding it...n/t

[Scout]

16. so if the owner can't nab their very scared cat, how is the fire department

supposed to be able to nab it???

[joeybee12]

102. The poster was blaming the owner for not taking out the cat, I was just posting

that the specific chore can be very difficult...you and that poster seem to want to blame the owner as much as possible for such stupid way of enforcing PUBLIC SAFETY.

[seabeyond]

106. no joey, i want to blame county for

"such stupid way of enforcing PUBLIC SAFETY."

[seabeyond]

23. so... hours later when fire is bury house you want fireman in there trying to nab that

scared cat?

dont nab cat before house is aflame and not scared

wait for house to be engulfed in flames then send firefighter unfamiliar with house to nab cat?

[Scruffy1]

104. Reminds me of a boyhood experience.

My father who was a large animal veterinarian recruited me to help vaccinate some barn cats for a woman on her fathers farm. In general barn cats are pretty much feral and no one else in the area bothered with vaccinations. Needless to say, even wearing protective clothes I got the shit clawed out of me. I have to admit that some of the easier ones got it twice to get the count right.

[Pathwalker]

126. Yes, and I have the scars to prove it!

It is not something I would recommend, though.

[sabrina 1]

15. Are you familiar with Animal Rescue?

Should we abolish that organization because most of the pets rescued belong to abusive owners who don't care of them?

You are saying that if a pet is unlucky enough to have an owner who doesn't care about it, it deserves to die. Only pets whose owners care for them, should be rescued?

You want to use the pets to punish the owner you believe, although there is no evidence for it that I can find, did not care about his animals?

Tell that to the people who work for Animal Rescue. Teach those people a lesson, let those animals suffer and die. Great Libertarian/Randian philosophy. I am so glad that this view is overwhelming rejected in this country.

[superduperfarleft]

18. But but but but....

PETS AREN'T TEH PEOPLES!!!11

:eyes:

[sabrina 1]

21. It's worse than that. Some commenters here seem to want to

use the helpless animals to punish someone they don't like. Disgusting attitude and fortunately not shared by a vast majority of the American people.

[seabeyond]

27. pot and kettle. thread after thread of what about the animals. firefighter, rescue animals....

i have yet to see one poster talk about the owner not getting his animals UNLESS some poster is blaming FD for the animals death.

whole threads blaming FD for animals death

[sabrina 1]

44. The FFs became responsible once they got the call that

a house was on fire. They have been condemned now by FDs all over the country.

Who cares what the owner did? I have addressed that in several posts, so you are wrong. The animals are NOT responsible for their owner's actions. YOU are saying that animals who have bad owners should be left to die. Why, how are the animals responsible for what their owners do?

That is exactly why we have rescue units to go out and take animals away from abusive owners, because in this country and every other civilized nation, we have decided that in a civil society we do not leave animals to burn alive if there is a way to save them. Which there was in this case had the FD come out immediately before the fire got so out of control.

[seabeyond]

50. dont fuckin make up fabrications and give them to me. i did not say animals should be left to die

anywhere. if you are going to make an ugly accusation about me, prove it. link it. show where i say they should be left to die.....

i am saying, you are accusing FD of ugly stuff. KNOW your facts before accusing them of ugly stuff. kinda like know your facts before accusing me or other duers of ugly stuff.

if the owner could not even think to pull animals out of house BEFORE it was on fire, what makes you think he said anything to anyone about them

what makes you think FD even knew there were animals.

do you know what the owner said, hey, the house isnt on fire, but i have FOUR animals for you to rescue??????

[sabrina 1]

54. Know YOUR facts before you go all over the board

making them up. When he called the FD before the fire reached the point where it was too late, he told them there were animals on the property. The animals ran into the garage, there were bullets in the house, he was afraid they would go off. The house needed WATER before anyone could go in, including the owner. Nice that you have slandered that man, speaking of 'UGLY STUFF'.

You have said over and over that the FF had no obligation to go in since the owner 'didn't care' about his own animals. If that is now what you meant, then maybe you should be more clear about what you mean.

As for the FF they deserve condemnation and have received it from many FDs around the country now, people who understand what their oath means and why they are FFs to begin with.

[seabeyond]

63. no obligation to go in since the owner 'didn't care'

one post.... where did i say owner had no obligation because owner did not care.

i said owner did not get the animals out.

far cry from what you gave me. you made the point, once again

[sabrina 1]

78. But what does it matter what the owner did, once they knew

there were animals on the property, which they did because he told them, that is all that matters. You are not the only one mentioning the owner 'did not care'. That is completely irrelevant to the FF or anyone else. So why is it even being mentioned?

Anyhow, if I misunderstood you I apologize.

[seabeyond]

86. FD knows the house is not inflamed. so there are animals on the property

they arent endanger. take care of them. so what....

i mean, i dont know sabrina. i was not there. the fire is not threatening the animals. there are no humans endangered. they were put in an ugly situation by county and owner. fuck.... if the fuckers were my neighbors i wuold have called animals out and put in my yard.

but i am not gonna make up a story and vilify FD because they are powerless to fix the situation. and those who really feel the repercussion (house burning down) refuse to fix the problem

none of these municipals want to be in this position.
none of these firefighters want to be in this position.

[sabrina 1]

93. The owner explained why he couldn't get to the animals. They

ran into the garage, I believe. There was ammunition in the house, (maybe the garage, I don't know) he was afraid that the heat of the fire would explode the ammunition.

When the alarm at our house goes off, my SO doesn't wait to ask questions, nor do any of the firefighters I know. They simple leave as fast as possible, and go to the fire.

None of these questions needed to be asked, there WAS a fire, that's all the FD needs to know.

As for the municipalities not wanting to be in this position, they did want it. They had an opportunity to start a Volunteer Fire Dept, but didn't do it. They also had the opportunity to pay a tax, but refused to do so.

Our district where I lived until two years ago had even less people living there and yet we have a great Volunteer FD and the most modern equipment. People raise funds even outside of our district to pay for it and to keep it going. Everyone knows they need money, most people buy tickets, go to fundraisers etc.

This did not have to be the way it was and I hope now they fix it now that everyone has seen that these rightwing ideas do not work.

[sailor65]

97. Wow, nice one

You're going to claim I didn't back up my point about the owner yet you just reprinted the account of the ammunition.

Epic.....

Thanks, It saved me time in pulling up links.

And here is my sincere hope that some idiotic dumbass never sends your SO into a burning building with explosives in it after an animal. I am sure it won't happen because most fire commanders are very likely better at making decisions for their teams than the average DU poster.

[joeybee12]

105. Um these firefighters DID NOT make a decision not to go in because of the ammo

they made that over $75 bucks.

[sailor65]

108. You're out of sync....

that was a reference to a different section of the thread.

[sabrina 1]

130. No one would have had to send him, he would go willingly

so long as there was a chance of getting out.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about and don't have time to try to figure it out.

There is a big picture here which you are not looking at, focused in as you are on the individuals in this particular case.

What this is, is a Rightwing dream of how this country should be run. Now we saw it in action. When the 'common good' is cast aside in favor of 'everyone for him/herself, this is what we get.

If the FFs had had taken this view when writing the Constitution, they would never have written it the way they did. They would have decided that 'not all men deserve to benefit from a civilized society because some are irresponsible and selfish' so let's go with 'every man for himself'. What kind of society would that be? Well, I think we got a, thankfully, small example of a rightwing world from this incident.

[seabeyond]

150. here is the problem. and thank you. thank you for talking to me. not yelling, calling me names

or shifting around what i say, but talk. cause i got it a little more clear here in understanding, because you took the time

here is the problem i am seeing

you say i am narrowing it to one individual. that is how i perceived your perception. in my mind, i am seeing the whole. in your mind, you are seeing the whole. you and i are seeing two different wholes.

you say FF action was rw

i say county /owner action rw

FF collecting taxing from citizens to provide services, and wanting the same for this area is "socialistic", liberal to me. tax all, to protect all.

county to me is rw/teabagger/libertarian rule. opt in/out of putting in collective pot for good of whole and protecting all.

i see county holding FF hostage.

i see FF as our progressive friend as a whole cause they want to tax all and provide for all

you have narrowed FF to this one event and see it as the libertarian action.

i get that. it may be. but what is the option when 75-85% is not paying. (but that doesn't really matter). right now we are talking two views. both tending to progressive/liberal thinking. but my way is not being viewed as liberal, though i think it is much more liberal than yours. because int he scheme of things, you are supporting the teabagger/libertarian policy.

[sabrina 1]

180. You are right, I have probably focused more on the FFs,

unfairly perhaps, because I think we are used to expecting more of FFs. Our image of them has always been that when you are in a desperate situation, they will come no matter what, sometimes risking and even losing their own lives to do the job they swore to do. To most of us, they really are heroes.

So I think we felt 'let down' by the Fulton FFs. But as you say, they did not make the rules so the blame goes way beyond them, to the politicians mostly, the Mayor eg.

I did see the action of not responding as rw. I think people understand that the FF did not make the rules, but think that in this case, they should have refused to follow the orders of the Mayor and the Chief. That would have been a difficult decision to make, some would probably lose their jobs so it's a lot to ask, I know. But in a way, expecting that from them shows in how high an esteem we hold our FFs.

I did NOT mean to place all the blame on them though. I guess I was not clear about that. I mostly blame the Politicians who are ultimately responsible for the system that is in place. But, I don't live there, maybe they are acting in response to their constituents also.

Anyhow, some good has come of all this, as I said in another post, it seems that now they are considering a tax and/or a Volunteer FD.

Good post, btw, you made things a lot clearer in this post.

Here's a link to the press conference held by the Chief and the FD:

Firefighters and Obion county mayor speak over fire controversy

"First, we regret that the Cranick home burned as a result of not paying a rural fire subscription. Second, let me say this tragedy was not the fault of the South Fulton fire department or the city of South Fulton, but rather, it was the failure of the Cranick family not to pay their subscription," said Reavis.

Reavis's own fire department in the city of Hornbeak does not charge a subscription fee. They fight all county fires they're called to, without being paid by those county residents.

Reavis spoke out against the subscription-based fire protection service expanding to the rest of the county. County commissioners will vote on such a plan on Oct. 18.

"No firefighter wants to stand by and watch a neighbor's house burn. But we're sometimes put in this predicament through the subscription response program," he said.

Firefighters are put in a position of checking to see if a resident has paid, before being allowed to respond to the call.

"They could have saved the house. They could have saved it very well. They didn't," said Todd Cranick, whose parents have lost their house.

The county mayor, Benny McGuire, reiterated that county governments are not obligated to provide fire protection service. Either a subscription fee is requested, or a mandatory fire tax can be imposed on county residents.

As you will see by the comments, many people are not accepting the excuses. But, hopefully the attention this has received will bring about a better system.

And thank you too for talking it out. It's natural that this would get people upset, we really do hold our FF to the standards THEY have always set for themselves and accomplished, and we are human, we were disappointed in this Dept's actions. We don't expect much of politicians, especially Republicans so their behavior was not a surprise or a disappointment.

[seabeyond]

186. that is the first i have heard from county. the mayor.

"mandatory fire tax can be imposed on county residents."

i hear ya.

one poster out of all suggested maybe uniform governing on something as important as fire. it would be so cheap for them to do a mandatory tax. cheaper than the subscribe. and would protect all. it should be a federal law of protection for all so small governing body could not do this.

peace...

[seabeyond]

103. you are wrong. adn i will explain. the municipalities WANT the tax rolled in, they have no power

8 municipals want the tax so all get service. they want a tax rolled into property of COUNTY. county is governed seperate from teh 8 municipals that are taking care of COUNTY fire service needs.

municipal wants the tax so they are not in this situation.

COUNTY that governs self voted down the VFD. county that governs self thought about rolling .13 to every $100 in property and voted it down. COUNTY chose subscribe for the citizens in county.

municipal does not like it. 5 of the municipals are not on subscribe. they will do a call at $500. 75-85% of those charges are not paid. they absorb into their municipal budget and THEIR people pay for county.

two days ago COUNTY has now made 5 subscribe, leaving three that charge a fee adn end up charging their tax payers.

county has not only not learned a lesson, they are making it worse for the municipals to give fire service.

they are SEPERATE and the fire service has no power or control in this county.

[sweetapogee]

53. you left out

You left out the part about the firefighters asking their bosses for permission to leave their regular paying jobs to take a fire truck to the next state over and put out an already lost house belonging to a person who doesn't think it is necessary to contribute to the operations budget of the fire dept.

If this fire had been in my district, I would have incurred more that $75.00 in lost wages just for the privledge of being there.

Unless of course I'm missing something here?

[seabeyond]

60. i have been on these threads for three days, listening to compassionate liberals spout

about all that is good about them and the horrors of the duer that might see this a tad different than you. i have listened to the most ugly things being projected at me in the most fabricated, vilifing way. we have now been given that if we dont think just like you, and say just what you do.... we would attack some dying girl and her family in the ugliest way, in another thread.

as they, oh so compassionate duers, espouse their righteousness in all that is good and kind.

what happened to all the open mindedness that you insist you are consumed with and the other side lacks.

i am not attacking you because you see the owner as the victim. i understand where YOU are coming from. i understand the majority thinks like you.

i dont see him as the victim. he was not powerless. he had power. he had the power to buy that subscribe and chose not to. he had the power to keep his animals safe. that does not make a victim in my book.

how i see it is.... the victim is the neighbors that were put into jeapardy. the victim is the firemen that risk their lives and are now vilified by the nation. my heart hurts for these men. because a county and an owner chose to put them in that position. the victim is the municipals that cannot do there job as they need. the victim is the city residents paying for the non payers.

those people are powerless. those people have no control. they are dependent on county. they are dependent on the owner being responsible.

i have compassion

i give my compassion to others. not the same as you... but compassion it is.

i understand, can see, know that neither of us are bad, both of us see it differently

WHO has the more open mind. WHO is being ugly.

[sabrina 1]

110. Well, I don't necessarily see the owner as a victim

That isn't the point. I know how FDs are supposed to work, they are not supposed to care about the owner's character or politics, they are simply supposed to respond to the call that a fire is in progress. The same way a police officer is supposed to respond to a call that a crime may be in progress.

If people do not want to take these risks, or if they believe they will be influenced by their own judgementalism, then they should not be in those jobs.

As for the 'liberals spouting' or whatever you said, I am not a liberal on every issue. I would describe myself more as a moderate, liberal on some issues, very conservative on others. I really think it is not productive to use that phrase. People are reacting as human beings, not because of their political ideology.

Eg, my sister is a Republican as is her husband, and both of them are horrified by this story also. Most of the FFs I know are Republicans and they too are horrified by what happened. This is a human story first, but when you look behind the story, you find that this happened because of Rightwing Ideas. And I'm glad no people were hurt but it will serve as an example of why Republican Ideas don't work.

Having everyone covered by Fire Protection regardless of race, creed or economic situation, is a Liberal Idea. That is why you see so many Liberals, joining Republicans in their condemnation of what happened.

As for your compassion for the FF, the Chief was the one who gave the order, he should be fired. I don't know how the FF themselves felt, but I know that most of those I know would have argued with him and urged him not refuse to answer a call to extinguish a fire.

I do see your POV, I just don't agree with. I do believe you are a compassionate person, but I think the animals and the little grandchild who loved them, deserve my compassion before the FF in this instance.

I do feel for them now, since they are getting so much negative attention, I always feel sorry for people when that happens to them. But hopefully everyone will learn something from this.

[seabeyond]

113. it is not about owners political position, at all, ever. that has nothing, at all, to do with

anything.

is that clear. letting a house burn was in no way decided because of this man.

it was solely decided on the fact he didnt subscribe.

him not subscribing was solely his choice

the county, that has NOTHING to do with the FF are the political faction you are talking about. they have nothing to do with the FF. they are seperate.

do you get this yet.

the FF in not in the county that governs.

the FF does not like this system

the FF wants a tax on all to give service to all

[sabrina 1]

136. I get it!! Nevertheless this was a failure of mammoth proportions.

I have no idea how the FF themselves feel about it as I have read nothing from them so far.

In our Dept. if there is a fire in a neighboring district, our Dept will to outside of our Dist to help fight it.

A lot of people bear the blame for this. But it WAS about politics. It was Republicans who voted down a tax and a Volunteer Dept. This is how Republicans would run the entire country if they could.

As for the dist itself, they should have their own volunteer Dept. the way so many other rural areas do. But that too was apparently rejected.

[seabeyond]

151. it is about repugs voting down dept... but you blame the people that are not responsible for it. nt

[sabrina 1]

172. I blame any public servant or citizen who sees something

that needs to be done and refuses to do it. Just as I would blame someone for watching as a woman is being attacked on the street and just walks on by. That DID happen in NYC a long time ago and a woman died because no one felt it was their obligation to help her. From that we got the 'The Good Samaritan Law'.

'Only following orders' doesn't cut it since Nuremberg. At some point, when the orders are wrong, people have to act on their own and many have.

[seabeyond]

174. ok. well.. i understand that the 8 municiples have been being screwed for two decades.

and the cities cannot fund this area that is not willing to take care of themselves.

[sabrina 1]

179. They didn't have to be screwed. They should have pushed for a

fire tax and/or a Volunteer Dept. NOW, I read, they are finally talking about that. But it took this kind of attention to get them to even discuss it. Hopefully they will have the sense to do it so that no FF is ever again, as the Chief said, put in a position of having to look at a list of who paid, before answering the call to go fight a fire.

[seabeyond]

182. they have pushed. they have talked about it. county has refused. NOW

with all this attention, they are going for it again.

no, they did not have to be screwed. long ago they could have told the county and their people, fuck it. outta here. take care of your self. be without ANY fire protection.

might have precipitated all this faster.

this is still the same municipals talking about it again. the county still isn't talking about it. you know, does no good how much municipals talk about it. if county does not want it, they wont do it.

county a couple days ago added two more municipals to subscribe. not sounding like they are willing to follow the municipals lead. so that will change nothing for municipal. they will still be in the same bad place.

[sabrina 1]

185. Then they should appeal to the residents and give them a deadline

'We will answer calls to your dist for one more year, while you get your own system in place. Any help you need getting it set up, we will be happy to provide' etc. etc. and then keep the media focused on what they do.

I would like to know how much money is involved and if anyone is benefiting from it.

[seabeyond]

187. high five.... this is what i am talking about. problem solving. that sounds doable

and righteous. i like

[sailor65]

121. It's good that you don't, but you still don't get it!

The firefighters, the ACTUAL guys in the uniforms, are the ones almost everybody on this damned board is going after. And they had less control over any of this than anyone else. How can you or anyone else think that the actual firefighters WANTED to stand and watch? They have to follow orders just like so many others. They have children to feed, and people who depend on them just like you and I do. They were TOLD that this house was not to be protected. It's too damned easy for the "Look what a hero I am" crowd (No, I'm not including you in that) to go after these guys. The FF had no way out of this situation. They were screwed before the phone rang. It was set up by others and is being paid for by them.

[sabrina 1]

135. I get that. I already said the Chief was the one who gave the order.

And I think he should be fired, after an investigation. I don't know what the FFs could have done given the circumstances. If they did not want to do what they were ordered to do, I'm sure many of them have made their feelings known by now, or will in the future.

They should have a Volunteer FD in that area. That would solve many of their problems, aside from being able to go out to their own fires, they could assist other Depts when needed as most Volunteer Depts do. In return, those Depts will come to their aid when necessary.

The bottom line is that this system failed regardless of who is responsible or who the people are. It just failed. Now they need to come into the 21st Century and start planning a system that has been successful elsewhere for their own district. I'm sure they would get lots of help from around the country to get started.

[hayu_lol]

167. Some folks here will not admit that the person to point the ...

finger at is the guy who started the fire. Obion County issued a wind warning that day and open trash burning was forbidden.

Sabrina...the VFD took care of THEIR subscriber, a neighbor of your so-called victim. They protected his property.

The South Fulton VFD has share arrangements with the Fulton, KY FD. Union City, about 11 miles away, does not send their FD into the rural areas.

The facts in this case are a waste of time...throwing pearls to pigs so to speak. The old trite saying comes to mind: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Did any of the naysayers read any of the links provided?

[sabrina 1]

177. I am fully aware of all the facts that are available, the FD taking

care of the neighbor who paid the fee etc.

I am looking at the bigger picture. This system failed because it refused to take into account what every other area of the country has, that there will always be irresponsible people in this world and for the sake of the common good, it is necessary to implement laws that look out for the entire population, including those too dumb, too ignorant, too poor or whatever, who will not or cannot do the responsible thing.

This would be a wonderful system if humans were perfect. But as a society we have agreed that that is not the case and thankfully, as a result, this is a very rare occurrence, what happened in this situation.

Now they are talking about a fire tax and/or a volunteer FD. But this had to happen before they would even consider it. These lessons were learned over one hundred years ago when to get the FD to come to your house you had to pay a fee and a plaque was put on your door. Naturally, it failed as while the FD took care of their paid clients, those clients had no protection from another house going on fire and putting there's in danger. Eventually a better system was worked out and so far, it seems to work fine. These people are regressive, wanting to go back to 'patriot times' or whatever insanity they espouse. Now maybe some of them have seen WHY things changed.

There will always be a 'guy who started the fire' or someone who doesn't pay their subscription. That is factored in to how most of the country handles this problem and no FF is asked to check the list of subscribers before going out to fight a fire. Only in Republican Country.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

230. !

:applause:

[seabeyond]

34. i am not an animal person. as responsible to animal as kid in this situation. there is no more

chance i would leave four animals in a house at the risk of burning than i would a child

[sailor65]

22. Animal Rescue doesn't go into burning buildings

to "Rescue" animals.

[sabrina 1]

39. You are quite ignorant of the risks taken by Animal Rescue

workers. Not surprising since you also were ignorant of the fact that FFs do in fact often risk their lives to save animals. See my post below.

Animal Rescue workers are often faced with violent and armed owners of dogs or other animals something they cannot predict until they arrive at a scene.

But you miss the point completely, which sort of explains why you take the position you do.

Should animals whose owners do not care for them, be rescued by Animal Rescue? You have NOT answered that question.

Lol, 'shot down'. Really, the only thing shot down is your Randian theory of how this country shoudl work. The vast majority of Americans totally disagreed with that way of life, which is why we HAVE FDs and Animal Rescue Units. Which includes animals trained to help in rescue efforts.

[seabeyond]

41. before we pin this on FD, answer please. do you know how engulfed the house was when fire got out

there.

was the house totally engulfed. was there even a possibility of firemen maing it into house to try to find four animals in an unfamiliar house....?

it really does no good claiming FD stodd there watching the animals burn, if that is not the case

dontcha think?

[sabrina 1]

59. The owner called the FD before the fire was out of control. They did

not stand there, as they refused to come out at all. He told them there animals on the property, he offered to pay their expenses, but they did not go out until the fire was threatening the neighbors next door who had paid the fee. Then they went out and watered down that house, watching as the other house burned to the ground.

Had they responded when he first called, hosed down the house, put out the fire early on, then like so many other fires, they could have gone in rescued the animals before it was too late.

No FF should refuse to answer a call to a fire. That is what they did.

[seabeyond]

66. yes. i know this. they refused the call. county set them up and the owner set them up

to refuse the call

you believe regardless, .... they should have gone out. i understand that

i dont sit in judgment of going out because i understand FD position (understanding is not the saem as cheering burn baby burn you deserve), yet i want them to go out and put out fire. i see both sides. i understand the counties responsibility in sitting up the municipals.

i see the muncipals as victims. the firemen as victims. the animals as victims. the neighbors as victims. they are the powerless. that is what makes them victims. they are dependent on the power of the owner and county

[sailor65]

73. Yes, they sure did set them up....

and the FD is taking the bulk of the beating. Which makes me sick.

[seabeyond]

76. bullying. it is just like bullying. county /owner pick, pick ,pick, finally the kids swings

no one sees or acknowledges the two decades of the pickin.... but by gosh, they see the kid swing and he is expelled from school. bad kid. how dare you. and the bully walks off with a smirk.

and everyone cheers and coddles the bullying. and scorns and vilifies the kids that has taken it for two decades.

[sailor65]

111. You've got it right

This was a complete no-win situation for the actual firefighters. Set up by others and now paid for by them. With the bulk of DU leading the idiotic charge.

[sailor65]

64. You left out burning buildings

and rightly so. AR does not do that. Additionally, when AR gets to a site deemed hazardous, they call in professionals (Obviously that's usually the police) who deal with the particular hazard so that they (AR) can then rescue the animal.

And I never said FF's DON'T risk hard to save animals. I said they can't be EXPECTED to.

And yes, animals uncared for should be rescued by AR. BUT.....AR should never be SENT in against armed hostiles, burning buildings, etc..

And you can drop your moronic view of my "Randian theory," because I'm in the camp that thinks all should be taxed and FF funded.

[sweetapogee]

238. a question and a comment

sabrina 1,

You said in #39: "Animal Rescue workers are often faced with violent and armed owners of dogs or other animals something they cannot predict until they arrive at a scene." Sabrina, I assume you belong to an animal rescue team? If this is correct, may I ask you what you are doing in a rescue situation with the potential for violence before the scene is secured by law enforcement? Do you not have protocols to follow? And how do you avoid disturbing potential crime scenes?

I have posted on a few threads on this topic of the fire. My involvement is that I'm a volunteer FF and a line officer in my company (Lieutenant). I'm also a volunteer EMT and run ambulance calls and QRS in my fire district. The state EMS protocols require us to wait for LE (and in the case of animal rescue the county EMA) to secure the scene before entering if there is any chance of violence. This is not a optional requirement. If we don't wait for LE to secure the scene, we risk loosing our EMT credentials, would certainly get us kicked out of our QRS, BLS or ALS organization and could earn us a fine or other legal problems. I have a friend who cannot join an ambulance company as a volunteer because he entered an un-secure scene on one of his first QRS calls. So I would like to know what kind of work you do in the animal rescue industry.

Moving on---As a general comment to everyone, the speculation about FFs performing rescue ops and who or what is considered a candidate for rescue is way off reality. For you alls information, our bunker gear is not fire proof nor is it air conditioned and depending on the airpack model, we don't have unlimited amounts of breathing air. 10 or 15 minutes is a long time to be interior in heavy fire conditions. It isn't like the movies, a fully involved room will have temperatures well above 700 degrees which will melt carpets and computer screens and lung tissue. So forget rescue in those conditions. And if the heat doesn't do it, heavy smoke will.

I personally will look at the situation and if a successful rescue is possible with reasonable chances of FF safety then we will proceed. We don't care about the age, sex, nationality or political party. If the chances of success are doubtful, then no. This applies even to fallen firefighters, our own. If anyone thinks I'm kidding, just read some of the NIOSH (CDC website) firefighter fatality reports and see how long the bodies of fallen FFs wait to be recovered.

Now, my regular paying job is in manufacturing. I have fridays off and one friday a few years ago we were toned out for a fire in the afternoon. I live, by the way in a semi-rural area, "small townish" kind of place. This fire was at a dog kennel, fed by propane and yes I'm proud to say that I got to pull a few dogs out of the fire. We couldn't get all of them and in the end about 18 died. I never want to have another call like it ever. This event actually made national news because a famous person owned one of the dogs. However, having been in the position, I can tell you all plainly, we had to endure the cries of some dogs that we just couldn't help. So, if I have a person tell me that their pet is trapped in the house and there are flames coming out of every window, door, through the roof and so on, sorry. We don't attempt rescue for humans in those conditions either because the victim cannot survive, is probably already dead and the firefighter probably will not survive either.

One last thing, no firefighter wants to watch a house burn down. Stop blaming the FFs. This includes the Chief. Someone owns the assets of the fire department and that entity makes the policy on how the assets are used. Property owners are also responsible for their end of the deal. My prediction, the fire department in Ky that didn't respond to a fire in TN because the property owner didn't do his part will in all likelihood discontinue the subscription system for everyone after the current subscription year runs out. Just my prediction.

So now you have heard from a real firefighter. For the record, I have national (pro-board) certs in FF1,FF2, HazMat Ops, State certs in vehicle rescue tech. (car, truck, bus), (swift) water rescue, confined space, high angle rope, grid search, in fact I'm as I write this on stand-by for a grid search in Pike Co. PA, plus I'm an EMT---all volunteer. I say this to illustrate my commitment to rescue people in need and to put fires out and help in medical or trauma situations as a first responder. I know, if nothing else, what current protocols and methods of rescue. I'm not writing because I used to be a volly FF in the 1980s or because my friend or uncle was a FF, no I'm one right now and I went on 6 calls this week. One last thing, those who are blasting the RW pukes in this situation are waaayyy offf base. I know just as many pubs as dems in the volunteer fire service.

What I have written is to the best of my knowledge accurate. I state my credentials, not to impress anyone. I quite frankly don't care who I impress or piss off. I love the fire service and hate all the speculation and the ease that some here are willing to sacrifice other people lives for no gain.

[seabeyond]

239. excellent post... thank you for taking the time to write it.

"We don't care about the age, sex, nationality or political party."

"who are blasting the RW pukes in this situation are waaayyy offf base. I know just as many pubs as dems in the volunteer fire service."

we arent blasting all republicans and certainly not the ones that are firemen. like your quote above, i appreciate all FF without discrimination. betcha everyone of our FF are republican in our area. it is the policy that is teabagger/libetararian/republican that is being bashed. the policy that create this situation for both the republican and democratic FFs fighting.

good post.

thank you

and i agree

[seabeyond]

26. when fire got to neighbors property and "watch" house burn, how engulfed was it?

were they to go into this engulfed house to rescue the animals?

[AnArmyVeteran]

40. I would risk my life rescuing my pets.

[BuelahWitch]

42. Me too

When the fire alarm goes off in our apartment building, the first thing I do is grab kitty and put her in the carrier. I've been lucky, the two cats who have lived with me here have not been "hiders." But I wouldn't leave without them.

[AnArmyVeteran]

85. My five cats are indoor cats but they could go outside into a cage.

A year ago I built a cage a big outside cage, or cathouse, so they could go outside anytime they wanted. It's too dangerous to let animals go out, mostly from humans. If I ever had a fire I'm sure they would be too frightened to realize they could get out though and I'd do anything to try to save them.

Btw, when I first saw your picture I thought it was a pic of Christine ODonnell, the witch of Delaware. :)

[BuelahWitch]

163. LOL, no, Buelah was an intelligent witch

and her creator, Burr Tillstrom got his start as a puppeteer in the WPA in the '30s, so I imagine he was a Dem.

Truthfully, I don't think any witch would want to claim Miss Delaware Dumbass as one of their own...

[AnArmyVeteran]

170. Duplicate...

[AnArmyVeteran]

171. Sorry if I offended you by mentioning the wicked witch of the east! :)

I

[DrDan]

217. I think the point is would you risk your life to save the pets of someone else?

[seabeyond]

220. better. would you risk someone elses life for your pets. i dont know that i

would/could do that. i dont care if they want. i dont care if it is their job

[DrDan]

252. you are absolutely correct - and I agree with you

[Lyric]

25. That's assuming that all pets are willing to stand calmly in one place

to be picked up and carried out. In a panic situation where the pets can smell the smoke and hear the noise of the fire approaching? Not effing likely. I'd have one hell of a time catching my cats in a situation like that. They smell smoke and hear fire FAR more acutely than humans do, and their instinct is to find a place to hide. My dog would be easy to catch--he's huge, and couldn't hide from me. But finding panicked cats? How long would that take--and all while the fire is getting closer and starting to ignite the house itself?

It's not as easy as you make it sound. We are trained from childhood to make sure that all humans are out of the house first and foremost, and only AFTER the humans are safe should we think about pets. Well, all the humans were out of the house--does that mean that the panicked-and-hiding pets should be left to burn to death without even the tiniest effort being put forth to save them? I would never expect a firefighter to risk his or her life for my cats, but if the fire was still small enough that someone with proper safety equipment and oxygen could get in and at least *try* to rescue them without risking smoke inhalation, then what is the justification for NOT doing so? There's a big difference between entering a house that's in the first stages of fire (where the actual flames are still confined to one area, and the primary danger is from smoke) and a house that's fully flaming in all areas and about to collapse. There's a window of opportunity there for someone with protection from smoke inhalation to enter (and exit) safely, BEFORE the flames spread throughout the house and weaken the structure enough to cause a collapse.

I feel that animal lives are at least worth *trying* to save within that window of opportunity. Thankfully, most firefighters agree with me.

[seabeyond]

30. the fire was well into back yard. lots of time. house not inflamed.

BUT yawl want fire to accomplish miracle of exactly that when house IS inflamed.

[Lyric]

99. Did you even read what I typed?

Because your response reads like you skimmed the subject and ignored everything else. And unless you were there with a stopwatch, ALL that you know is that "the fire was in the yard". You have no clue how MUCH time they had. Instead of knee-jerk reacting to someone you perceive as an "opponent", please actually READ what I wrote. It was not unreasonable.

[billlll]

5. OK...agree.... just hose fm safe distance

Save pets.

[Cleita]

7. The point is that the pets would have been all right

if they had put the fire out when they arrived. So just letting them burn alive while they watched is cruel and inhumane.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. But most of them will, unless ordered not to.

How many firefighters do you actually know?

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Of course not.

But many of them will, anyway.

Of course, I'm talking about firefighters, not firewatchers.

[sabrina 1]

10. Oh, yes, and they do it all the time.

Just one of tens of thousands of examples:



Firefighters Save Dog From House Fire

POMPANO BEACH, Fla. -- Firefighters rescued an unconscious dog from a burning Pompano Beach home Monday afternoon.

According to Pompano Beach Fire Rescue, firefighters went to fight a blaze at a home in the 1500 block of Northeast 28th Street at 12:15 p.m.

Officials said the only person at home at the time escaped the house safely but told firefighters a dog remained inside.

The firefighters extinguished the flames and found the dog unconscious inside the home.
Paramedics took the dog, a mixed beagle breed named Toby, outside and gave it CPR and oxygen. The dog was taken to Acacia Animal Hospital. Fire officials said veterinarians would monitor Toby and keep him on oxygen for 24 hours.

On Tuesday, Toby was transferred to the Coral Springs Animal hospital, where he is in stable condition.

What they did was what FFs are supposed to do, they didn't stand by and watch a house burn, they extinguished the fire, then went in to see if anyone needed help, and they found Toby.

This is why in NY we call them 'NY's Bravest' because they are brave and they save lives, animal and human every day around the country. Except in one small, town that would make Ayn Rand proud. I hope that attitude doesn't spread around the country.

[baldguy]

13. +1000

The fire dept isn't supposed to check if you've paid your protection money to their employers before they help you.

[sailor65]

17. It's a shame you didn't read your own post

"The firefighters extinguished the flames and found the dog unconscious inside the home."

Had there been people, they would have gone in immediately.

[sabrina 1]

35. First, YOU didn't read my post or the one I was responding to.

I said clearly that FF don't have to risk their lives, all they have to do is do their job of extinguishing a fire as these FFs did and then they can go in safely, as they did, and rescue animals that may still be on the property.

I was responding to a comment that FF should not be asked to risk their lives. However, I CAN post stories of FF who DID risk their lives to rescue horses and other animals trapped in fires.

You really should read the thread before commenting, it helps to avoid being wrong.

More on FF, some who have risked their lives to save animals:

Firefighter Risks Life In Daring Animal Rescue

Fireman Saves Horse From Burning Barn In Washington County

However, one horse -- Pearl -- refused to budge.

Hait reported that's when North Strabane firefighter Paul Williams jumped to action. He knows this particular horse and ran into the burning barn to save her.
Slideshow: Images From The Scene

Lots of FFs have risked their lives to save animals as well as people. I guess that's why they are called heroes.

In Republican country, they don't know the meaning of the word 'hero' which is why they call chicken hawks like Bush and Limbaugh, heroes.

I love my FFing friends and know without a doubt that every one of them WOULD risk their lives to save a life, human or animal. And my SIL who goes out when called to rescue horses just because she can and she gets no money for doing so, not to mention the work is very dangerous and she is just a volunteer.

There are different kinds of people in this world, selfish and unselfish. I like the latter kind better and when in trouble, as these Repubs were, odd how they too look for the liberal, unselfish kind to help them out. And when all they see around them are their own kind, a house burns down and animals die a horrible death.

[superduperfarleft]

11. "Pets are NOT people." Well, thanks for the biology lesson.

That still doesn't really lead into a point of why they should or should not be saved by firefighters.

[AndrewP]

38. LOL. No shit, right?

[sailor65]

12. Especially when the owner can't be bothered

to save his own pets when he had plenty of warning.

[Scout]

19. +10,000 n/t

[sabrina 1]

20. First please post a link to the fact that the owner

wasn't bothered about his pets. This has been said constantly but I have yet to see proof.

But, for the sake of argument, are you saying that pets deserve to burn to death just because their own doesn't care about them? Are you aware that we have organizations like Animal Rescue whose job it is, is to look out for pets who are being neglected? Should we disband that organization, because we need to teach those owners a lesson by letting those unfortunate animals suffer?

Should only the animals of wealthy people be saved? People who paid their bills? Animals can choose who owns them and make sure they pay their bills?

[sailor65]

29. Your "Animal Rescue" analogy

was already shot down upthread.

Read the 50,000 threads already posted about the owner and his ammunition.

[sabrina 1]

36. You made a claim, I guess you can't back it up. Thanks.

[sailor65]

100. Looks like I didn't need to

thanks for the upthread assist.

[sabrina 1]

131. Still no link to your claim that the owner 'didn't care about his pets.'

Didn't think so as I already searched for such a link myself. Not that it would have mattered, what the owner did or didn't do is never an issue when there's a fire to be put out.

Glad to help, would have posted the link for you IF I could have found it.

[Petrushka]

213. According to a news report at the following link:

"This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out."

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

In the video at that link, one of the reporters indicates where the fire started and where it moved across the yard toward a shed, etc., saying that it took 2 hours before the fire reached the house.

Two hours? Two hours would surely be sufficient time---wouldn't you think?---for responsible pet owners to feel "bothered" enough to "save" thier own pets BEFORE the house caught fire.

Two hours would be plenty of time, too, for the owners to remove their stash of ammo from the house, live ammo that presented a high risk of injury or death to anyone foolish enough to enter the house after it caught fire.

[haele]

247. If there are only three or four people with garden hoses trying to contain a fire

It's a pretty continuous job- especially if there are dry trees and shrubs around the home.
Ever try protecting a house during a brush fire with a garden hose because there were no fire department resources available to protect your neighborhood.
I've been up on the roof of an apartment building taking turns with 5 other people for at least four hours wetting down anything within reach during a serious 4 alarm brush fire that was still almost a mile away to keep the tar roof from catching from the floating embers that the wind was blowing over us along with dry, moisture sucking wind from the fire and smoke.
A couple 3/4" diameter garden hoses just do not have the water capability to hose a bit of lawn down and leave it for ten/fifteen minutes while you search an area for a scared pet -you have to lay down a sheet of water a good two/three inches deep with a 6" diameter hose to deal with the dry-brush fuel in that sort of environment. Just damping the grass and shrubs turns them into smoker material; the only difference is that embers won't catch them, but when the fire comes up, they'll still catch and burn - just within minutes instead of within seconds
Once a brush fire gets going - eats an area larger than your average firepit, and starts creating creating it's own wind, all a garden hose can do is slow the fire down, it can't contain it. And a brush fire can pick up and move - exploding at a rate of dozens of feet a minute, and even quicker if it gets into trees.

That it apparently took two hours instead of half an hour to go a couple hundred feet and reach the house tells me that they were fighting the fuck out of it with garden hoses. If they had taken the time off fighting it to go hunt down scared and hiding animals, they would have ended up engulfed within ten minutes - and if they had attempted it before the fire department came out to fight the neighbor's fire, there would have been bodies other than pets to deal with.

We see this every fire season in California. People die all the time trying to hunker down and save their houses with a garden hose when they're caught on the roof or wait too long to try to escape because their house and things are more important than evacuating. The garden hose may slow down the advance on the house, but the escape route has been cut off by the rest of the fire.

Haele

[haele]

248. Delete - Dupe

N/T

[HuckleB]

24. 86...

[MineralMan]

31. 73

Only old readers of QST will know.

[MadHound]

28. Hmm, I suppose I shouldn't have saved the pets that I did when I was a firefighter

Darn me, I shouldn't have done what firefighters have done for years and decades, and continue to do to this day.

Darn that oath I took to save all lives that are in danger.

Another idiot who has never served, telling those of us who have and do serve what we should and shouldn't do.

[LynneSin]

46. I'd like to think there are more firefighers like you out there

My Pets are my family. I wouldn't know what I would do if my house caught on fire. I probably could grab Abbott and take him out with me but Evita is so evasive to catch. More than likely I would open up all my windows & screens in the bedroom and living hope Evita would run out the window.

[MadHound]

61. There are many, many more like me out there,

These assholes in TN are in a distinct minority, and are being roundly, and almost unanimously condemned by firefighters throughout this country and around the world.

[sabrina 1]

51. Thank you for all the pets you saved. You are a hero

to most Americans. And as a nation fortunately those of us who appreciate what you have done, are in the over-whelming majority.

[MadHound]

62. Not a hero, just doing my part to help out this country and its people.

But thanks for the kind words.

[sailor65]

67. Yes, MH, we've been reading your resume for days......

No one, including the OP to which you responded, suggested that you SHOULDN'T have, only that you shouldn't be EXPECTED to risk your life for one.

And a very small and informal phone canvass of 3 Northern Detroit Suburbs last night returned no surprises. Standing policy for all 3 prohibits FF from risking life for any animal "Beyond a safe point." ("Safe Point" apparently determined by the OIC at the scene.). Those are the rules they operate under even in fully funded professional organizations.

These, BTW were all highly trained professional firefighters. My son didn't try calling any of the volunteer groups farther out.

[MadHound]

74. Sorry that somebody with actual, real life experience is killing your libertarian, shadenfreude buzz

But the key phrase in that statement is "beyond a safe point." That has always been SOP, but it is vague enough to cover a lot of territory, and doesn't prevent firefighters from indeed risking their life to save a pet. Hell, a firefighter risks their life every single time they go into a burning building. Granted, if it looks like the roof is about to go, or other such situations, we won't go in after a pet. However that leaves a lot of leeway up until that point, and firefighters will take advantage of it. Frankly what you consider beyond a safe point, most firefighters consider to be a walk in the park.

Tell you what, next time do you want only the ignorant and inexperienced folks to speak out on a topic? That's going to be a real intelligent discussion.

[sailor65]

90. Don't be stupid

I've already said that I'm in the group that thinks citizens should be taxed and FF fully funded without exceptions, so you can stow that Libertarian shit.

The term "Beyond a safe point" is not mine, those are the words of the fire department personnel. And the policies I described are theirs. Yes, a firefighter risks life every time he/she goes in. The point is, these 3 professional organizations all said the same thing. They are ordered to protect their own lives above any non-human victim. They used that phrase themselves. I think I'll call a few more tonight and see whether I can find even one with a different policy.

So since you're someone who doesn't like the uninitiated telling him what to do, how about you stop doing it to them, since you weren't there and have no idea of the actual conditions observed or the orders given.

Or do you actually believe this is the first FD in history that loves to just stand and watch houses burn?

As far as what I consider a "Safe Point," although I was never a FF, I was part of that military you weren't "Attracted to" (If I recall your words correctly) So my idea of a "Safe point" is at the very least equal to yours, even if we fought two different enemies. So the pissing contest doesn't wash either.

[Vickers]

Sailor65, did you just call another DUer stupid?

Tsk, tsk.

[sailor65]

229. No

I told him NOT to be. Had I called him stupid, my post would have been rightly deleted.

[Vickers]

236. Well, YOU shouldn't be stupid, either!

:headbang:

[sailor65]

237. I'm not the one

who accused a fellow DUer of being a troll.

[Vickers]

241. Translation: "Quack, quack." n/t

:P

[northernlights]

128. thank you and bless you, MadHound, for all the pets you saved

and any you tried and were unable to save. :hug:

My furkids ARE my family. I would do whatever I could to get them out. If it ever comes down to it, and push comes to shove, I hope I'll have a firefighter like you there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. If you risked your life to do it, yes you shouldn't have.

Your life is worth more than anyone's cat.

[rbnyc]

160. Thanks.

I'm glad you spoke up.

[Skittles]

240. firemen saved my pet

I was at work in the middle of the night when there was a fire at my apartment complex - they kicked in my door to search, and took my cat out and gave him air.....yes INDEED

[DainBramaged]

32. Bullshit

[closeupready]

47. I've never particularly liked dogs, but that first pic brought tears to my eyes.

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

79. I work with firefighters, pets are never left behind

even if they are deceased, their remains are recovered. Very few firemen are like those in TN who said no,and in spite of the OP's opinion, I disagree and have proof.

[sabrina 1]

65. I remember that first story. The dog seemed to be actually

thanking the FF for what he did. It was a beautiful story of humanity and real heroism. These guys are real heroes.

[stuntcat]

75. omg

that third picture :cry: the terrified little thing getting its lives saved! If there was a heaven these kind of people would go there, definitely.

[DainBramaged]

82. And those furbabies will be there waiting for them.....

:hug:

[Pathwalker]

83. Do you remember that New York cat who almost burned to death trying

to rescue her kittens from a burning building? A firefighter watched her, followed her, and then rescued her and the remaining kittens? It made the news some years back. Beautiful story.

[stuntcat]

92. omg

amazing.. critters can be amazing.

[DainBramaged]

101. Scarlet the wonder cat

http://www.twotuttles.com/scarlet.html

[Pathwalker]

125. Thank you, DB. That's her. I love that cat's story.

And they wonder why we call them our furry children. ;-)

[Lorien]

227. Amen

:yourock: and so do they!

[DrDan]

33. big ol' rec

[nyc 4 Biden]

69. big ol' unrec

[DrDan]

120. key words - "should not be expected"

[Lorien]

228. Big ol' "ignore" button

neither of you are worth the bandwidth.

[DrDan]

256. key words - "should not be expected" . . . .

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. Bets on this thread going to epic flame war? 3 to 1.

[closeupready]

45. Dammit!

Unrecced! :mad:

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Don't get into firefighting then

because that IS part of the job.

When possible of course, but it is.

Been there, done that, ok.

And legally your pets ARE property... what do you think is one of the mandates of firefighting?

[Bluerthanblue]

141. WORD UP Nadinbrzezinski!!

:hi:

[lukasahero]

49. "Pets are NOT people."

And thank dog for that.

We humans have got to let go of that "god loves you best" and "you matter more" superiority complex we've been sporting for generations.

[superduperfarleft]

55. +1.

[stuntcat]

77. +1000

If humans could see themselves as part of the world instead of rulers competing for it then we'd figure out how to save our own future.
As it is, our mass psychosis could end us in a few decades.

[WinkyDink]

116. Human achievement kind of adds to that whole "superiority" thing.

[lukasahero]

127. Yeah we've definitely done a great job 'achieving'

- the destruction of the earth.

We're too stupid to realize that just because we can do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[Scout]

52. funny how many people on here either can't read or just don't care about

the meanings of words....

your statement "FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO SAVE PETS" has suddenly become "no firefighter ever has or ever should be allowed to try to save a pet if they want to take the risk."

[COLGATE4]

57. K&R 1000. But don't try and convince people of that - it's more

fun to set up a straw man and then beat it to death.

[Individualist]

56. Unrec

[Quantess]

71. This is into the double digit of negative integers, I'm certain.

[underseasurveyor]

68. Firefighters save property.

Pets are property. Simple.

[Scout]

70. only to the simple minded n/t

[COLGATE4]

72. K&R nt

[underseasurveyor]

80. Oh, ow

So says you.


Your parents must be so proud:eyes:

[Scout]

84. :rofl: n/t

[sabrina 1]

88. That would be an overwhelming majority of the American

people and most likely over 90% of Fire Fighters and other rescue workers.

Thank the gods that the Randian theory of 'me, me, me,' is still rejected in this country. Not completely stamped out apparently, but defeated and rejected.

From one of the proud, simple-minded who believes all life is valuable, even the lives of the scumbags of the world. They serve a purpose, they hold up a mirror for the rest of us so we remember what we do not wish to be, and what kind of world we do not wish to live in.

[underseasurveyor]

94. Hear here

:toast:

[superduperfarleft]

157. Under what legal theory currently in place anywhere in the world

would you say that pets are not counted as property?

[calico1]

81. Wow,...just wow.....that's all I can say....n/t

[rucky]

87. Should they risk their lives to save property?

Yet they enter burning buildings that are empty.

[jgraz]

89. FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO SAVE PEOPLE WHO POST IN ALL CAPS

Since we're making arbitrary distinctions...

[rbnyc]

161. LMAO!!!

I'm actually totally down with that.

[jgraz]

164. You do realize your response was in all caps, don't you?

:P

[rbnyc]

166. I actually did...

...but left it, as it's generally the custom with LMAO, LOL, WTF, etc. and not nearly as punishably annoying as posting a straight up sentence in all caps. (Plus I thought it was ironic, but I still may not quite have a grip on irony.)

[Bluebear]

95. BETWEEN YOU AND A SHIH TZU, GUESS WHO PEOPLE WOULD VOTE FOR?

!

[Individualist]

123. ...

:thumbsup:

[Blue_In_AK]

223. Yuuko, the Wonder Dog, of course

[Bluebear]

245. All hail Yuuko!

:hug:

[flvegan]

96. The brilliance of this thread goes all the way to 11.

[treestar]

124. This is not really an issue though

There does not seem to anyone with the position that it would have been OK to let the house burn had there been no pets there. So the pets just come with the house.

[Petrushka]

145. And an ammo stash sometimes "...just come[s] with the house." too.

:shrug:

[northernlights]

129. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION

BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS. YOUR PERSONAL, MISINFORMED OPINION. I PITY YOUR PETS.

Now will you kindly stop shouting? Sheehs!

[Bluerthanblue]

137. firefighters risk their lives to save people's SHELTER- and their

possesions every day. The pets are no less valuable than someone's 'stuff'- (the house I lived in at age 13 burned down while our family was out, neighbors rescued the 2 dogs who were in the attatched porch, I know what it's like to lose everything but the clothes on your back)

FIND something else to rant about.

You may not want them to risk it all for 'stuff' or animals, but they do, they do it without complaint, and often without any real recognition unless something goes wrong.

[onenote]

144. so firefighters shouldn't be expected to fight fires in vacant buildings?

Burn baby burn, indeed.

[One_Life_To_Give]

146. Only one to benefit is Ins Co's

Truth is fire departments really work for the insurance companies. Saving that vacant building just reduces the amount the insurance company will have to pay out. And indirectly have an affect at reducing your fire ins premium.

[onenote]

148. really? I guess in your world fires in vacant buildings never spread

or give off toxic emissions or create other hazards that can be mitigated by actually trying to put the fire out.

[One_Life_To_Give]

149. Ever hear of Surround and Drown

It's FF slang for protecting all exposures and letting the structure burn. Some fires are simply not worth the risk to FF lives to try and aggressively put out.

[onenote]

153. some fires aren't but the mere absence of humans inside is not the only factor

in making that decision.

It is not uncommon to allow an abandoned building to burn while taking measure to protect neighboring property. But that is not the normal operating procedure for pccupied buildings that are structurally sound and have been evacuated. Or to put it another way, once firefighters determine that all of the residents of a building are accounted for and safe (or have been rescued), the firefighters do not necessarily cease their efforts to fight the fire and turn merely to protecting neighboring structures. If that was the case, they'd simply make sure that those structures were evacuated and let them burn too. But they don't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Word

There is a peculiar dementia about pets on this board.

[JuniperLea]

155. Firefighters have a long and glorious history of saving animals...

[ThomasQED]

156. Thank goodness pets are not people.

And I wonder what you mean by "love".

[superduperfarleft]

158. Probably "I love my couch" or "I love my new TV."

Says a lot, doesn't it?

[-..__...]

165. 26 years on a major metropolitan FD...

and I can assure you, we will attempt to rescue/save your pets BUT, it is not a priority and never should be.

All is dependent on the fire conditions, structure and manpower/equipment available.

If the risk is low and conditions are favorable (and by that I mean a minimal chance of injury), then we'll make an attempt to find your pet.

Any pet rescue that I'm aware of was in conjunction with, or during the course of other events; if during a search for a person, fire suppression, ventilation, overhaul, etc we happen to find someones pet... we will attempt to remove it from the scene, but not if it is going to interrupt those operations.

Oftentimes when we do (rescue a pet), concern for the animal is part of the reason, the other reason is that we don't want the owner to attempt a rescue on their own (which would greatly complicate matters). The same reasoning applies to ice rescue of trapped pets (dogs especially).

FWIW... I was present for this fire on a mutual aid call.

Might give some an idea of what I'm talking about.

It was a bad fire... bad enough, but if the cat hadn't been in the window just sitting there, or had been combative, no one was about to go chasing it down and or looking for it...

3 firefighters will get Medal of Valor at White House
Helped save trapped colleague in Brookline in ’08

Firefighter Frederick “Rick’’ Johnston, Lieutenant Paul Pender, and Acting Lieutenant Gerald Murphy will be awarded the Medal of Valor for going well beyond the call of duty, saving a firefighter during a house fire on Harrison Street in April 2008.

Vice President Joe Biden will host the ceremony with Attorney General Eric Holder.

The rescue occurred when the three-alarm fire swept through the two-family house.

A propane tank on a second floor porch exploded and the fire grew dramatically from a sudden rush of air.

Portions of the second floor collapsed.

Firefighter Stephen Nelson became trapped on the second floor and was pinned under flaming debris, with his air mask blown off his face, according to a report.

Two other firefighters, including Murphy, were blown down a flight of stairs.

Murphy got up and ran back up the stairs, and grabbed a hose and started pouring water onto the fire, where Nelson was trapped, the report said.

Johnston and Pender were outside, and they ran into the partially collapsed building.

Murphy, hose in hand, yelled to the others where they could find Nelson, according to the report.

They crawled on the ground, through the flames, until they found the semiconscious Nelson.

No one was killed.

Eight firefighters, including Nelson and all three rescuers, had injuries and burns, the report said.

Complete article

Cat rescued at same fire scene...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRKTJhTxeo

[Xicano]

168. Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

"'Inalien'. If only you could hear yourselves. 'Human rights'. Why the very name is racist. The Federation is no more than a Homo-sapians-only club."

[Marr]

176. I am speechless at the fact that people argued with the OP's statement.

Some people actually expect firefighters to risk leaving their children without a parent just to save their fucking cat? Honestly, if you believe that, you are a loon.

[lukasahero]

181. They're already taking that risk to save your sofa

Why not your cat?

I think people have their values mixed up.

[Marr]

203. They aren't obligated to save my sofa.

If they can put the fire out before it burns my sofa, fine. But no one is going to expressly risk their life to save it, and they certainly aren't "obligated" to try.

In fact, they aren't even obligated to attempt to save *my* life. Conditions may be such that the risk of making the attempt far outweighs the chance of success.

[seaglass]

204. Thank you. My husband is a firefighter and this thread is nauseating. n/t

[JVS]

210. I'm generally no big fan of people...

but my observation of the trauma that losing a parent vs losing a pet had on kids I knew growing up makes the two totally incomparable.

[Brickbat]

188. I'm not even going to read this thread, but I will jump on to say that I agree with you, and I say

that as a pet owner. I would never, ever expect that from a firefighter.

[cherokeeprogressive]

191. Agree should not be EXPECTED.

Kids growing up with their father (or mother for that matter, they are firefighters too) alive and in the house trumps someone else's cat every day of the week. Hell, that trumps a houseful of cats, in my book. In the long minutes between the 911 call and the arrival of firefighters, I'm going to be doing my damnest to get my two cats and two dogs together and out of the house. For the dogs it's easy, as they sleep in kennels in my bedroom. 90% of the time my cats can be found in my bedroom as well.

I'm NOT going to run outside, wait for the FD to arrive, and scream "GO SAVE MY ANIMALS!" and actually expect someone to run into the flames I ran FROM and risk their own life and the future of their children for me and the animals I left behind while attempting to save MY OWN ass.

I also don't believe in human lives being risked on thin lake ice when a moose, deer, or other large animal has wandered out on it and fallen through. Sorry, that's the way I feel.

[tnlefty]

193. OK! THE FIREFIGHTERS WHO SHOWED UP SHOULD'VE

TRIED TO PUT OUT THE FIRE, AND I HOPE THAT IT HAUNTS THEM EVERYDAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES THAT THEY DID'NT.

Could we stop yelling now?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

195. I once had a kitchen fire with lots of smoke in the house. The wonderful volunteer dept

found my 2 kitties on their own and both were panting something awful. A fireman gave them oxygen with a baby oxygen mask. No one's life was in jeopardy but I was incredibly grateful.

[G_j]

205. WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

& can't believe I responded to this lame thread.

[JVS]

206. Oh boy

:popcorn:

[seabeyond]

207. really late

with that popcorn.

[JVS]

208. Hey, I just got here.

[opihimoimoi]

212. as a ret'd fire capt....HFD 1965 to 1994,,,,,union Dept... City & county

Our policy was LIFE & PROPERTY and the safety of the Gen Public....this is supposed to be true in most, if not all, Depts.

Pets ? I been to cat in the trees calls, horses in the deep mud calls, puppies stuck in the pipe calls, etc etc...there were times we saved pets in burning houses and times when we were too late....we did what we could...some risky, others not so...

but then, Honolulu Fire Dept is a fully paid Dept...we are paid to do the job.

People first prop second...everything else after that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfCvjv51I88&NR=1

[superduperfarleft]

211. Question: you have two houses, equally on fire.

In house A, you have Adolf Hitler.



In house B, you have this cat:



Who would you expect a fire fighter to save????????!!!!!!one

[alcuno]

221. Don't fire fighters risk their lives to save property?

[JackRiddler]

224. IF YOU YELL LOUD ENOUGH YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT!!!

I currently have all-caps AND more exclamation points!!!! I win!!!!!

[Lorien]

226. You're disgusting. Have a SHRED of humanity for a change

can you honestly say that Dick Cheney's life is worth more than the life of ANY beloved pet dog? No, it's not. And it's not YOUR call to make just because you're so fucking insecure that someone loving an animal more than they love you freaks you out so badly that you have to spew your hate here on DU. Firefighters risk their lives to save FUCKING WAREHOUSES !!! It's their job to put out fires, period.

[TK421]

231. I can't speak for a firefighter, but if they refused to get my dog out of a burning building

then I suppose it's only up to me to get that dog out of the fire....at least I made an effort, right? I mean, I feed the thing, keep it sheltered etc so it is obviously something I care about..right?

[beevul]

232. I work with a volunteer firefighter...

I work with a volunteer firefighter, who happens to be a former prison guard, and a grade A authoritarian asshole.


He seems to take great pleasure in telling his co-workers all the times hes had LEO cuff/ziptie people who were worried about thier pets/family/etc.

"Can we stop hearing this already? Pets are NOT people. I love mine, but I would never EVER expect a firefighter to risk his/her life over a pet."


I'll make this simple:

If a firefighter wont or shouldnt be expected to risk thier life for a "pet", then they should stay out of the way of those that will.

We have pomeranians. And cats. And while some may see them as simply pets, they are much closer to being our children. Our poms share our bed. The know when we've had a bad day, they remind us if were up past our normal bedtime. They are dear to us in the very same ways that our grown children are dear to us. I could sit here all day and give examples.


I am a peaceful person, at my core. However, should I ever be in a position where my house is burning, and our babies are inside and in danger, I feel very sorry for anyone that gets in my way.

[Cleanelec]

254. Comparing dogs and cats to children?

Give me a freakin' break.

It disgusts me everytime I hear someone make such a comparison. I actually question their sanity.

[chaska]

235. I'd save the animals. Forget the humans. Most of them I'd pay to be rid of.

[Canuckistanian]

242. Hasn't this thread gone away yet?

It was ill-advised that it was posted to begin with.

[JoePhilly]

243. UNCOMMON is an ARSONIST ...

With this OP ... uncommon lit a fire ... watched it burn, and yet took NO ACTION at any point while it has burned.

[TorchTheWitch]

244. yet they're expected to risk their lives to save buildings?

And trees? And trash dumpters? And all these other non-living things that are endangered by fire? Because that's exactly what they're expected to do every day all over the world. Funny how we expect firefighters to risk their lives putting out burning buildings, and woods, and grasslands and trash dumpsters, etc. but not to risk their lives to save any pets.

Huh.

[Uben]

255. Are they saving those objects....

... or trying to prevent the disaster of the fire spreading, creating even more loss? IMO, they are there to put out a fire which is causing damage and has the potential to create even more unless checked. They even start fires themselves at times just to control another that has become unmanagable. I know of no single firefighter that would not rescue a pet if it were a reasonable thing to do. The key word is "reasonable".

[Zax2me]

246. This isn't really an argument, is it?

Meaning it is more a common sense call made by well trained firefighters every day.
I would guess most try to save pets up to risking life, but won't go as far to save one as they would a couple of children. Or adults, for that matter.

There is also dept policy that must be followed, and that may vary, right?
Maybe it is a topic for debate but ultimately I trust public service fire departments will make the right choices, balancing risk for pets versus for people.

[CraftyGal]

257. I actually purchased some window stickers that notifies...

first responders that there are pets in the home. TrogL and I both work so if something should happen while we are away they are aware of pets in the house. would I want them to risk life and limb, no however our first responders have gone out of their way time and again to save animals caught in a fire. I love our compassionate first responders.

CraftyGal