Reardon wrote on Oct 30, 2007 10:26 PM:Rider has again hit the nail on the head. We have huge military assets in San Diego -- unused. We need to use every possible asset, without bureaucratic political nonsense or union interference. When fire threatens, we need action -- not turf battles. Homeowners with ponds and pools can, and should, coat their own homes with gel and that would mean fewer homes for firefighters to make a stand. There is more we all can do. There is more we all must do.

Outside the Box wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:27 AM:We have resources available. We should allow the Navy and Marines to come and assist us. Also, we need to have volunteer fire crews. Many of us would be there in a heartbeat to assist in watching homes. Why not have the fire gel available and instructions given to every homeowner on its use at city halls. We do NOT need more PAID fire fighting staff 24/7, we need additional help in the fire emergencies. We need to have basic training on fire fighting skills. There is no way that additional help wouldn't have been used. Look at all of the homes that could have been saved if their owners stayed and fought the fires in their own neighborhoods.

I'm On Board wrote on Oct 31, 2007 7:14 AM:Richard is correct, more resources are not needed. The conditions for this last fire storm were correctly forecasted and additional resources (air attack aircraft) were brought in and on hand at the Ramona airport BEFORE the fires started. Yet they were worthless due to the very conditions that prompted them to come here, high winds. It was reported that many fronts of these fires were not being fought on the ground either for the same reasons. The winds made it too dangerous for ground crews to work within an effective distance. So what advantage would more firefighters, who would be paid year-round, have meant for this fire? Nothing. SDSU Prof. Pat Abbott correctly pointed (KUSI interview) out that major changes in building codes followed every major seismic event in California during the last century but few (or none) changes followed major wild fires. That needs to change.

John M. wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:37 AM:I personally know two people who broke the law and went back to their homes and put out small fires to save their homes, fires that firefighters would have never known about. They are criminals, since this was against the law, but they saved their multi-million dollar homes and saved other homes from being burned down by stopping a possible bad fire before it starts. Mandatory evacuation in suburban areas is ridiculous and immoral. Instead let those who want to man the hoses at their homes do it and this will greatly reduce the spread of fires. There is no way we could ever man enough firefighters to stand watch on every single home so let the home owner defend his property and in doing so will help his neighbors by stopping fires before they get started.

Murphy wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:41 AM:We all would be a lot better off if Rider had been elected County Supervisor instead of Pam Slater when he ran against her in 1992.

Matt wrote on Oct 31, 2007 11:04 AM:To sugest that citizens should stay behind during evacuations is terrible. The blood of those people will be on your hands. Did you know that the burn over of engine 3387 was caused because firefighters were trying to rescue two citizens. People staying behind will only hamper coordinated efforts for fire attack by increasing rescues and jeprodizing ff's lives. While suggesting to over hire just for brush fires I agree that that is not a good reason. In fact departments are growing simply for the ever expanding communities and the need for emergency personnel. This does take money. Lastly putting just anyone out there to hold a hose who may or may not have fire training brings up so many problems most of all communication and orginization. The right hand must know what the left hand is doing. In 9/11 many of those firefighters died due to lack of communications between the citys own police dept and the fire dept. Imagine the complications in communicating and coordinating with so many new factors. Mr. Rider I think that thinking out of the box can be great for new ideas. Just be realistic and research before you write.

C 130s wrote on Oct 31, 2007 6:21 PM:If Duncan Hunter would have done something while he is getting paid, and not lied about the C-130s that were suppose to be ready, then we would have had air support. But people elected someone who can't do their job. He lied about the C-130s. He said they were on their way when in fact they were never equipped.

To Murphy wrote on Nov 1, 2007 5:45 PM:We would all be better off if Rider lost his columnist job, just like he lost the board of supervisors election. He does not know what he's talking about.

FireCap wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:26 PM:Aah! Once again Mr. Rider is the firefighting expert for San Diego County. (I looked for you on the fireline last week, but could not find you) If 10 times the amount of professional firefighters could not have stopped the fires why would that amount of military or volunteers made a difference? As an FF expert you should also know that the very Santa Ana winds that spread the fire, also made it near impossible to fly 100 feet off the ground to drop water or retardant. Even if they could drop the water would not even touch the ground due to the winds. You sound like the Libs blaming Katrina on FEMA. Humans cannot stop natural disasters, even volunteers and military. OH yeah, but you did get something right. "Mandatory" evacuations should end, then you could blame their deaths on the Firefighters that you constantly malign.

Reardon wrote on Nov 1, 2007 6:56 PM:Hey, FireCap: If everyone who comments must be an expert, the paper would be three pages long and this blog would not exist! A good dose of common sense, when juxtaposed against entrenched bureaucracies, can effect change -- and Rider is an expert on one thing, paying taxes. That makes him, and his reading constituency, the BOSS of "Fire Captains." Fire Captains are "Civil Servants" although they are apparently not always civil and do not quite get the servant part. BTW, you wouldn’t just happen to be a union steward, or former one, also, would you?

Reardon wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:15 PM:Matt: The family next door to my clients home fought the fire on their own home. When they saw that they had lost the fight to save their own home, they saved my client's vacant home, and then they went one more home and saved that -- it was already on fire. No firemen appeared that morning on that block. I think that family was acting heroically. What do you think? I would love to have had a Navy CB Battalion cutting a fire break around that neighborhood -- but "Fire Cap" would have made them join the union, first.

Me Thinks wrote on Nov 3, 2007 2:54 PM:Matt: Do you know for a fact that engine 1387's problems were due to citizens who planned in advance to stay and defend their fire-resistant up-to-code home(s)? I seriously doubt it. It is simply not true that homeowners who intelligently prepared to stay and defend their fire-resistant homes are "jeprodizing ff's lives." The facts of our 2007 fire seem to say otherwise. Many homes were saved by non-firefighters who did their work after the wildfire flames had passed, and extinguished ember fires. The media reported many such events. Evacuation clearly does not save property. It is simply not true that evacuation is the only way to save lives in wildfires. It took a smoky one hour for evacuees from Hidden Meadows to travel a couple of miles down Mountain Meadow road to the interstate, during which time the evacuees were much more exposed to the wildfire than they would have been in fire-resistant homes with defensible space. It is not even clear why the evacuation was ordered. I agree with Mr. Rider that we have to objectively consider what to do about wildfire. I don't feel that his mostly well-taken points require thinking outside the box" so as much as being objective and observing what has already been done elsewhere in this state, this country, and worldwide about life and property preservation in wildfires. Much has already been done. Read, listen, and intelligently evaluate. I hope that our governmental leaders are listening, but I fear not.

Reardon wrote on Nov 3, 2007 3:24 PM:To Me Thinks: I believe one "Lesson Learned" is that one lane of the up-hill lanes needs to be dedicated to downhill traffic, with a cone separation for fire and emergency vehicles. Most of the homes in the Meadows are not fire resistant in any manner, and I suspect the evacuation was called in an abundance of caution because most Meadows homes are unprepared, and the evacuation routes are not optimal.

Cbad wrote on Nov 4, 2007 11:50 PM:Hey Richard and loyal Reardon, Check out Dennis Clausen's recent opinion section (Nov. 4) The Firefighters would like to know the both of you were on that conference call with the Govenor. If so, We may need to speak with the two of you.

Rider Comment wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:01 PM:AirCap, you smuggly comment to me that 'I looked for you [Rider] on the fireline last week, but could not find you.' Well, I guess you didn't, since you support the law that says I'm FORBIDDEN to fight the fires! I'm supposed to do the mandatory evacuation and abandon my home. I'm not allowed to form or join a city firefighter reserve force, as you and your union bosses will fight such an innovation every step of the way. And then you have the unmitigated gall to criticize me for not breaking the law you support, and fighting the fires! BTW, I DID break the law, remaining behind when the mandatory evacuation call came -- staying to defend my home against the fires. Call the cops!

Rider Comment: wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:14 PM:Go back and read my commentary. Where did I malaign firefighters? All I did was say that we need more help from the military and a civilian reserve firefighting force -- and that people should have the option to remain home to defend their residences. Yet to these comment-writing FF's, somehow to suggest that FF's need additional assistance fighting the fires "malaigns firefighters." Go figure.

Joe Citizen wrote on Nov 8, 2007 6:34 PM:Rider's fundamental point - that no amount of ADDITIONAL professional trained firefighters could have stopped our latest wildfire. One can argue that perhaps the label "firegighter" is outdated in terms of what local fire departments actually do (seems little to do with actually extinguishing fires) but that does not diminish the need to municipally employ those who do.

Bill wrote on Nov 8, 2007 8:47 PM:If there is a wave of fire heading through nearby brush toward your home, then GET OUT! But in suburban areas, the danger is strictly from falling embers. No one is saying that we don't need professional firefighters; even volunteer fire departments (that make up the majority of firefighters in the country) usually have a core of professionals. Based on the descriptions from San Diego firefighters of their jobs, it would appear we need at least a significant portion of the current "full time" firefighters, due to their non fire fighting roles. Perhaps we need to retain all current full time positions. But creating more full-time positions to deal with a situation that only occurs every few years is just plain stupid. Can anyone tell me why not, other than a "need" for "union purity" in the force?

Billy!Bob!!Henry!!! wrote on Nov 11, 2007 9:32 PM:Good article...... don't expect the FF's to endorse any of it though. We could double the FD by cutting pay and benefits in half, no tax increase and we would have twice as many FF's, and they woud not be hurting for necessities if life even with their pay cut in half. They make $150K-$175K per year (full cpompensation with the value of healthcare/pensions/benefits included) with that HS diploma, so a cut in pay of 50% still puts them in the $75K-$90K range. We could even increase that number by making the FF's work to age 65 instead of the age 50 scam), like the rest of America.

Burned wrote on Nov 13, 2007 1:18 PM:Hey Billy, Bob, Henry!! Please research the facts. I’m a firefighter. I have been on the job for 22 years, my pay rate is $24 per hour, I work a not a 40 but a 56 hour work week. If I work more than the 56 hours per week, I get compensated at time and a half. Our department had a firefighter make $150k last year but when you added up the hours or shifts that year, he ended up being away from his family and home for a collective total of seven months. Many firefighters work two jobs; others work the extra available shifts. Yes we can retire at age 50 but have a much shorter life expectancy than “the rest of America”. Most of us today have college educations and provide an expanded level of service for our communities. We are not the enemy, so please take us out of your cross hairs and go find a more worth while cause to champion.

Reflect wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:08 PM:Hey Rider, Come out of your bubble, quit hiding behind your pen. Come shake the hand of a firefighter. Spend some time with us. Gear up and come along to battle a blaze or two. Then we can discuss the issues man to man.

Richard Rider wrote on Nov 16, 2007 12:20 AM:Reflect, cute offer. But, as you know, as a volunteer I'm FORBIDDEN to fight a fire. If I DO go over to my Scripps Ranch fire station and do a useless "ride along" (firefighters offer that option?), I'll have to hang around about 6 days there to be able to "battle" a single blaze, no matter how minor (based on our station's history). FYI, I tried to sign on as a firefighting volunteer after the 2003 Cedar fires, but was told to go away -- no volunteer ff's wanted. CERT volunteers are forbidden to fight a fire bigger than an office trash can -- a ludicrous restriction. All I'm trying to do is to get you professional ff's help in the big fires -- but you don't want it, and despise me for seeking it. Weird.

Richard Rider wrote on Nov 16, 2007 12:25 AM:Burned, you pity your poor firefighter buddy who made 150K, because all told he was away from his family for seven months of the year. That's a tad over 4 days a week -- hardly a major hardship. Compare that pay, risk and hardship with a soldier who spends seven CONSECUTIVE months in Iraq. Somehow I can't get too worked up for your disadvantaged $150K firefighter.

Richard wrote on Nov 16, 2007 12:29 AM:Burned, you repeat the tired canard that ff's have a much shorter life expectancy than "the rest of America." This is simply not true. Numerous studies show that today's retired ff's live as long or longer than the general population. Furthermore you fight far fewer fires than 30 years ago, and far fewer ff's die on the job. You perform a valuable service, but it's not as dangerous or life shortening as ff's like to claim.

Come on Rider! wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:30 AM:Rider, I think you need to visit your local Fire Station because you obviously have no clue about their jobs. A few questions for you. If one of your family members is ill or injured do you want a trained/experienced Firefighter/Paramedic to help or do you want your neighbor? You need to realize that Firefighters do not just fight fires. They will be there for any emergency. If your House catches on fire do you really want to risk the lives of your family and neighbors to save your home. Sounds pretty self centered. You need to realize that Firefighter train several hours a day and that is in between running calls and fighting fires. It is a full time training position that no volunteer or Military personnel would be able to meet or even come close to exceeding. To ask for Military support and volunteer support is an uneducated decision. Stop Harassing their duties and appreciate their efforts to help you , your loved ones and any other person needing help.

Richard Rider wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:11 AM:"Come on Rider" makes the common ff misrepresentation -- indicating that I'm suggesting we REPLACE our full-time, well-trained, medically skilled ff's. I'm not. Sadly, ff's paranoid, myopic concern about their job security is why ff's so fear (and will try to block) my ideas for supplemental emergency firefighting support. To be blunt, they'd rather your home burned down than any non-union emergency firefighting options be considered.

Richard Rider wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:22 AM:Consider how ill-reasoned Come on Rider's desperate post is. Nothing I've suggested calls for neighbors handling emergency medical calls. He says my idea of staying to defend my home risks the lives of my family and neighbors. How on earth does that apply? In an evacuation, my family in Scripps Ranch leaves (as they did in the last evacuation). Only those who wish to remain behind to fight the fires do so. I risk no one's life but my own. And I repeat -- in the 2003 and 2007 fires, not ONE suburban home fire defender died, or was even seriously injured. He further claims that the military can't fight fires, an amazing assertion. Pendleton Marines pitch in fighting base brush fires. The Navy has portable water pumps and professional ff gear. With a limited role in the big fires, the military could be invaluable in battling such blazes.

Burned wrote on Nov 25, 2007 6:48 AM:"Richard Rider, I'm not taking pity on our "poor firefighter" My point is that a firefighter that is compensated at a rate of 24 dollars per hour is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. And to be compensated at time plus half for anything more than a 56 hour work week is not unreasonable. Your point on "hardly a hardship" is miss leading. Its not 4 days a week, it 's four 24 hour shifts, which is equal to 120 hours per week and if our guys choose to take the duty for 120 hours per week (not for me and my family) then who can take issue with their net year end pay?

Richard wrote on Nov 27, 2007 1:31 PM:Burned, how does four 24 hour shifts in a seven day period become 120 hours a week? My point stands -- your $150K firefighter would be away from home four days (and four nights) a week -- compared to soldiers in Iraq who are away for SEVEN days a week for seven-nine straight months. And Iraq is many, many times more dangerous than firefighting. Not to mention the Iraq weather and Spartan living conditions. The soldier gets maybe $60K a year -- your ff gets $150K and a huge pension for staying behind in San Diego. It ain't right.

You gotta be kidding me.. wrote on Dec 3, 2007 8:45 PM:This bickering is becoming a joke. It's beginning to sound like a couple of school children arguing on the playground about who's dad can beat up the others. No body should be comparing firefighters with soldiers. They are two very necessary professions with with two completely different jobs. And both are extremely important to the citizens of our country. Yes, soldiers are in the most extreme and dire of situations with their lives in constant danger. Yes, they are required to endure these conditions for sometimes over a year at a time. I am more grateful than you could imagine (as a majority of American are) of their courage, dedication and selflessness. However, no one could nor would endure this for 30 years. There is a very good reason why most soldiers decide not to re-enlist (and decide to join the fire department). No human being could continue at that pace every year, for 30 years. And if you think that the life of a firefighter is not as physically demanding and mentally strenuous as they claim it to be, I ask you to test it out for one year. It will be easy. It will only take 3 to 4 times a week. Start off by continuing you normal dailiy work routine, but for those 3-4 nights a week, set you alarm for every one to two hours; get out of bed and walk around the block for about 45 minutes; return to bed; reset your alarm for another 2 hours later and repeat the previous drill. Now, every so often, instead of just walking around the block, but on your warmest clothes and a backpack full of bricks; sprint up and down your street and lift some weights, but istead of doing it for 45 minutes, do it for 2 ro 3 hours; go back to bed and atempt to go to sleep. After each night, get up at your normal time and continue your normal daily routine. No cheating now....no naps. Oh, but don't worry, you will get a few days off every so often to recover....just to start over again. Now take that year and multiply by 30. There are fewer firefighter who make it the full 30 than you would think. The sleep deprivation, physical and emotional stresses take their toll. By the way, the only firefighters I'm aware of who make 150k a year worked a ton of overtime to achieve that kind of compensation. (even with benefits included into the equation) Which means more shifts like the drill described above. Something also tells me you have not trully needed the assistance of a firefighter (yet), because if you did, i would suspect your tune would be a little different.

Richard wrote on Dec 6, 2007 11:36 AM:"You gotta be kidding me" claims fire fighters are called out every 2 hours. I'm sure that there is some fire station where that's the case. But others are far less demanding. At my local fire station in Scripps Ranch, all the calls -- fire, medical, false alarms -- come to about two calls per 24 hour period. And we're talking about putting a second fire station out here! The average throughout San Diego city fire stations is about one every four hours -- about 6.5 calls per 24 hours on average.

Gordon wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:43 PM:Thank-you for your article. I did stay at my home and fought the fire successfully with a garden hose. I know my house would not of survived if I didn't stay.