Ridiculous wrote on Dec 25, 2007 8:33 PM:Sounds good on paper but volunteers don't get paid. Need I say more?

cold666pack wrote on Dec 26, 2007 12:13 AM:Ridiculous? More like clueless!!! Volunteer firefighters DO get paid in many smaller cities, the fact that they are volunteer means they are often NOT unionized, that's why the smaller communities can afford to have their own smaller firefighting crews, also where they are not paid, they are made up primarily with several professional fire fighters who happen to live in the community but work in a bigger city, a way's off maybe. But that is not the only point of this article, the crux is that many government agencies play this smoke and mirrors game where they act like they can't find applicants for (insert overpaid government job here, firefighter, city government clerk, county government accountant, the list goes on and on and on) when really they do their best to NOT properly alert the public of the openings, in order to cherry pick lackeys that agree to play into the same smoke and mirrors for the next 20 years. And I'd be the first to say I love firefighters, they are mostly nice, hot guys that do good, not ego maniacs like a lot of cops, but they money they get for sitting around waiting for the next fire to happen is out of control, really, and then even with that they get these gold-plated benefits packages, and it's just not fair to taxpayers any longer. It's way out of wack. It should really be looked at.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:03 AM:Let's look at a couple of Richard's points. Richard points out that local governments rarely advertise job openings. Nor do they conduct outreach. Perhaps that's not a vast union led conspiracy, but rather a function of cut to the bone budgets. In last year's hiring round, the San Diego FD received only about 75 applications. So the department used the media to increase applications (read free advertising)and extended the application time. The mayor refused a pay raise based on "supply and demand". But.. here's the kicker... most of those folks aren't even showing up to the interview to get hired.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:11 AM:So let's talk about volunteers some. In the interest of disclosure, Richard and I have sparred over this subject before. I'm sure as soon as he sees this he'll jump in and accuse me of being a liar and everything else under the sun. I do support volunteer supplementing a paid fire service. But I want them to be well trained and safe. The state requires volunteers to meet the same training and safety standards that paid firefighters have. I don't expect volunteers to put in the 20 hours of training a month that I'm required to do. CAL FIRE training officers tell me that they're lucky to get 4-5 volunteer to show up to free training sessions around the county. Volunteerism is down across America. Volunteer FDs are having monumental problems with staffing and many have added paid staff. Folks, the existing volunteer departments need help with staffing and funding. Step up to the plate.

Roberto1 wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:29 AM:Having fought my share of fires and compensated IMHO you need well planned fire, rescue and emergency plans. It doesn't happen everyday but on the day it does, you will wonder why it wasn't planned any better. Volunteer's i.e. Fire Auxillary response teams ... can only be part of an overall emergency - contingency plan. firefighters (Men & Woman) need to be trained to work as one team and this requires tax dollars and consistancy.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:37 AM:To throw 'Ridiculous' his quote back in modified form -- volunteer reserve police officers don't get paid. Need I say more?

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:05 AM:JF makes the specious claim that government doesn't advertise because of 'cut to the bone budgets.' Nonsense. Advertising costs very little -- much can be done for free. But more important is the fact is that governments -- especially local San Diego area governments -- have experienced rapidly growing revenues. For instance, San Diego County property tax revenue has soared 148.5% in just the last ten years. The only budget shortfall such governments are experiencing results from runaway spending -- almost all on burgeoning per employee labor costs.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:14 AM:Firefighter JR verifies my case about government not advertising job openings, and the inexpensive nature of recruiting firefighter applicants. As he points out, last year, the city of San Diego's secret hiring process during the holiday season resulted in only 75 firefighter applicants by 8 January. The city extended the application period a week or two, and SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE ran a story bemoaning the lack of applicants (never mentioning the secret hiring process). In that short remaining time frame, over TWO THOUSAND additional firefighting applications were received.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:22 AM:JR claims that 'most most of those folks aren't even showing up to the interview to get hired.' Since there were only about 30 openings for over 2,000 applicants, many surely recognized the futility of applying. The competition for such coveted positions is fierce. If you are not a veteran, a full college graduate and/or an experienced firefighter, the odds are long indeed that you will be hired. But that doesn't rebut my fundamental assertion that a LOT of people want to be fire fighters.

Richard is right... wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:27 AM:On all points except one. The EMT-1 medical training process is FAR from difficult. I worked in EMS for nearly eight years and believe me, it is really easy. I mean come on: If it was THAT difficult, most of the people that are firefighters right now wouldn't even be firefighters. To be blunt--it's not like MENSA is going to be recruiting at fire stations. The truth is that firefighting is like a fraternity--a bunch of former high school football players looking to 1) hang out with their friends and play with big toys 2) make great money for working ten days a month, and 3) get lots of chicks and be called a hero. It was working on medic units that were stationed at fire stations that made me decide to not become a firefighter. Why would I want to take orders and work with people with little, if any, formal education, who are notoriously bad for making terrible decisions on calls. I have stories about firefighter mistakes that would make you crap your pants. Firefighting is the biggest scam job around. The old joke, from those of us who would actually treat patients (since 90-95% of all calls are medical aids and require no firefighter training) is that firefighters are the most expensive IV poles in history. You can always count on a firefighter to stand there and hold your IV...or go get your gurney...or maybe take notes for you. If there is one group of public servants that are underpaid and underappreciated, it is police officers.

Ricahrd Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:30 AM:JR claims he favors the use of firefighting volunteers. But most firefighters adamantly oppose such an option. Or, like JR, they want these emergency reserve volunteer firefighters to be fully MEDICALLY and firefighting trained as full-time firefighters. But what we need is RESERVE firefighters for limited emergency firefighting duties, just as we train our reserve police officers for limited tasks.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:40 AM:I discussed the cost of advertising AND outreach to get recruits. In another article in this morning's NC Times, the SD Sheriff's Office discusses their problems with recruiting.In that article, it's discussed that three short years ago, their budget for recruiting was zero.Know what the SDFD budget for recruiting is?Yep, zero.No money for outreach, no money for advertising.My fellow union members VOLUNTEER to do outreach for the city.Greedy, huh! Richard claims that property tax revenue is ever increasing, yet this article from 8 months ago counters that (...) The situation is worse now. With the decline in home prices folks are having their places reassessed. Folks, Richard simply hates the idea of paying any taxes. This has nothing to do with increased fire protection using volunteers, it has to do with not wanting to pay full time firefighters.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:56 AM:Richard, reserve police officers go through the exact same academy that paid police officers go through. Why shouldn't volunteer firefighters? Is is somehow safer to have less training and show up just when big fires hit? Richard is correct that competition is fierce for jobs. But why are applications down from 7000 a few years ago to under 1500 now? Oh, and he was off a little, the plan was to hire 90 from that pool, not 30. Do you really want a firefighter who is discouraged by the prospect of facing an interview panel? How many of those left will fail the background check? Don't you want your choice of top applicants, not what's left? Richard tries to blame the union for the decrease in applicants to the SDFD. But departments in Orange and Los Angeles counties still get the same high numbers of applicants. Could it be that the lack of pay really is causing a recruiting problem?

Cal Fire is inept wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:59 AM:Cal Fire is very big, but not the best. 72 percent of USA firefights are volunteers. Volunteer numbers have declined 8 percent since 1984. Cal Fire upper management is another governmental agency that does not work for the people. It is politics that drives upper management.

bottom line wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:08 AM:Firefighters have failed in their most important responsibility. They did not protect us from the fires. The reason: not enough FFs to fight wild fires. Solution: create an emergency volunteer firefighting force. Can't we implement the obvious?

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:20 AM:Note of clarification. According to an editorial in the UT (not the most reliable source!), 2075 applications were received last winter. But many applicants didn't qualify or didn't show up to the test. Fewer are showing up to the interview. That same article states that the city was planning to hire 50 (2 academies of 30, accounting for failures), but an additional academy is needed due to retirements and folks leaving for other cities.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:28 AM:Bottom line, as I mentioned in one of my first comments, there are existing volunteer fire departments all across this county. They need volunteers. By all means, go volunteer there! The obvious was implemented back in 1976 when the county ended the contract with CDF (as it was called then) for fire protection in the county. I'd even support using volunteers in the city, but they'd have to be well trained, physically fit and equipped with the same safety equipment as paid firefighters. There's worker's comp to pay. That costs money, and a lot of it to outfit a force that would only be used (in the city) every 5-10 years. My feeling is that it's more cost effective (that's what this is about, right, Richard?) to help staff existing volunteer fire departments that desperately need the help.

Weak wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:29 AM:Sorry J.R. You sound like someone who got in the wrong job line and are now bitter about it. The issue of effectively delivering emergency services to the public is far more complex than this sophmoric commentary offers. If someone wants to have a real debate on the subject, I would welcome it. But this stuff is just silly.

bottom line to JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:19 AM:Give me a break. Most of the residential fires could have been put out with a shovel and a hose. The neighborhoods were abandoned and volunteers could have put out most fires without all the gear of a professional FF. It is not rocket science to put out a small fire before a home is destroyed. How do you FFs propose to solve the problem? It is your job to come up with a solution. More of the same won't cut it.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:46 AM:Weak... I'm not in the least bit bitter about my career selection. It's what I've wanted to do since I was young. I was a volunteer firefighter for almost 10 years in small towns before moving to San Diego. I still volunteer about 8 hours/week to the city. What I'm bitter about is people trying to use the "firestorm" as a forum to cut pay and benefits. I welcome your real debate, bring it on. Let's start here -- Richard's made the point that staffing fire departments for "the big one" is ludicrous. I agree. I think we'd be better off telling people that they can't build in fire prone areas and that they must built using fire safe techniques -- starting with the current rebuilds. Your comments?

Richard wrote on Dec 26, 2007 12:10 PM:JF spills his firefighter (ff) beans when he writes that 'This has nothing to do with increased fire protection using volunteers, it has to do with not wanting to pay full time firefighters.' THAT'S the bottom line -- ff's such as JF are deathly afraid that any move towards a supplemental, emergency reserve ff force used ONLY to fight major fires would somehow cost our professional ff's their jobs. NO ONE has suggested that alternative -- including me. Doesn't matter. Their fear for their jobs drives their consistent opposition to any sort of nonunion firefighting assistance.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 12:15 PM:Bottom line, you're absolutely correct. Most of those fires could have at one point been put out with a shovel and hose. After the Cedar Fire the city of San Diego started a CERT program to help with these major disasters. It's not intended for major firefighting, but for "self help". I'll be the first to admit that the program hasn't completely gotten it's legs under it. Richard will tell you that it's ineffective because CERT members are forbidden to put out any fire larger than a trash can fire. But isn't that what you're saying? That these fires start small? We need eyes and ears and someone to catch those small fires. CERT members were used on the Witch Fire, but not on the front lines. I have no problems with increasing the size and scope of the program. Frankly, I think we could make better use of CERT members. Just don't think that CERT is the panacea to stop another major conflagration from happening.

Bob wrote on Dec 26, 2007 12:46 PM:Firefighters are paied too much plain and simple. The majority of the city's top 25 paid positions are firefighters. The top position is a chief that makes 186,000. There is no reasons that taxpayers should have to pay that salary.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:51 PM:In my previous NC TIMES columns,I've also suggested that we should be looking more to the San Diego County military for ground forces to help fight the big brush fires. I just came across a good, detailed column discussing this concept of military firefighting assistance, written by my friend, retired Navy commander Allen Hemphill. You might want to look it over.
http://tinyurl.com/2fno9k

CityPlanner wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:55 PM:You all have good points and should not take them to the extremes. Do you need to say the government is nefariously not looking for applicants? You are saying that the unions are running the City's...c'mon. Fire fighters always moan and complain about their budgets also... they are always making more money then many who work hard in local governments... That brings me to another point: Why don't we cross train some people in local government to do the menal tasks of clean up etc... when we have such a Fire Storm... City workers are the most loyal and hardest workers I know and would love to help out when needed. I for one had little to do when the Fires broke out and tried to help but was disregaurded... to dangerous for anybody but a fire fighter. A little training for the current employee's and you could find your emergency time fire fighters who are already on the payroll. Also I agree stop letting people build every where they want and curb the sprawl. Oh yeah you people don't like to be told where or how to build your homes even when it protects you and the community... Just my thoughts as a city planner.

Reardon wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:05 PM:Exhibit “A” in the Document titled Governmental Incompetence is that Ruben Grihalva is still the head of Cal Fire. He blames underlings for giving him bad advice when he had only three observers for 20 military available planes in the beginning, and for the policy that there is no aircraft firefighting 30 minutes after sunset. But Copter One of San Diego Fire flew in those high winds, and was flying after dark because they are night vision equipped – and so were all of the military aircraft Grihalva left on the runway! That line from Rider about being the Oakland Fire Chief’s son was not a throwaway line – his son was originally “randomly selected.” The whole firefighting thing, selection, duties and pay, needs to be examined from top to bottom. It does not pass the smell test, and it is the citizens who suffer, and pay.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:13 PM:CityPlanner hits on an idea that has some merit -- cross-training city workers to also be ff's. This is done now is some small cities where the police are cross-trained as ff's, and the same technique could apply to other city workers who could be called out for the infrequent fire. Of course, the pro ff's vehemently oppose this idea.
On the other hand, CityPlanner's suggestion that we use city workers for routine clean-up is far too expensive an option -- that work can be contracted out when needed, and volunteers can help pitch in.

Must include the homeowners wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:26 PM:CERT and Fire Safe Councils are helpful once the CERT Team or Council get up-to-speed. Fire Safe Councils work with OLD and new homes. Another problem, firefighters at many levels do not want homeowners to stay and protect their homes. It is a choice of the individual owner. A must for all homes (old, new, or shelter-in-place(SIP)): defensible space, which will positively impact every house nearby. The County of SD Wildfire Zone Web site has 12 oversized heavy stock flashcards with a plastic ring which are free, excellent, and accurate. ...

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:34 PM:In my previous NC TIMES columns,I've suggested that we should be looking more to the San Diego County military for ground forces to help fight the big brush fires. I just came across a good, detailed column discussing this concept of military firefighting assistance, written by my friend, retired Navy commander Allen Hemphill. You might want to look it over.
http://tinyurl.com/2fno9k

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:35 PM:With his comments about declining home prices equating to dropping city revenues, JF strays into an area he knows little about. San Diego County cities' tax revenues HAVE been climbing at a brisk pace, even during this downturn. If you want to better understand the upward trend of property taxes, even dating back to Prop 13, read my earlier NC TIMES column on this topic: http://tinyurl.com/2qdlyu
Eventually a deep, ongoing drop in real estate prices WILL slightly reduce the property tax revenue of government, but by a pittance compared to the dramatic downturn in the overall economy and the employment picture in the private sector -- you know, the rubes who pay the taxes to overfund government employees.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:36 PM:CityPlanner hits on an idea that has some merit -- cross-training city workers to also be ff's. This is done now is some small cities where the police are cross-trained as ff's, and the same technique could apply to other city workers who could be called out for the infrequent fire. Of course, the pro ff's vehemently oppose this idea.
On the other hand, CityPlanner's suggestion that we use city workers for routine clean-up is far too expensive an option -- that work can be contracted out when needed, and volunteers can help pitch in.

to city planner wrote on Dec 26, 2007 3:16 PM:A resident-to-be finds a beautiful piece of land (mountain top with views). The resident-to-be is aware of fire in that it goes uphill. The Realtor who sells the land to the resident-to-be does not have material to accurately explain either the fire hazards nor what improvements and planning could be made to the 1 house. Improvements and planning would make a difference whether it is 1 house or a development. It will be a more costly house or development. It is unfortunate when SD County developers knowingly plan to build a large development without taking in the human factors, nor work with reliable ethical professional experts. The planning dept, the commissioners, and supervisors allow developers to build dwellings that have different dwelling unit numbers from the General Plan. There is little effort made to build 1 or 3,000 units based on science, precise current fire info, available infrastructure, water, roads, hospitals, etc. There is some improvement with the fire resistant materials, etc. that are mandated by County. Both the resident-to-be building his her home and the developer building 3,000 homes need to be educated and take necessary steps to build as safely as possible which means at this time, going beyond both County mandated regs and current Fire codes. Build it right, or not at all. Build it so it will not compromise current communities and neighbors. Quality of life has diminished thanks to the city and county governments. Political interest only; not working for the health and safety of the public.

jason wrote on Dec 26, 2007 3:49 PM:This guy is full of crap if he has not
been noticing they are having a hard time recruiting Vol. FF back east second their eta's are horrible. God forbid you have a heart attack and you dont have a ff/paramedic their to give you the drugs neccessary for you heart to start pumping normal.

Bill wrote on Dec 26, 2007 3:57 PM:JF wrote that "My fellow union members VOLUNTEER to do outreach for the city. Greedy, huh". Well, yes, very greedy. If the only way to learn about a fire fighting (ff) position is to be told about it by an existing ff, then existing ffs control the application process and can limit the quantity of applicants and make positions available only to their friends and families. Yes, JF, such a system is greedy indeed, and inherently corrupt.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 4:34 PM:Richard, I may be wrong on the trend in property taxes -- the point is still the same, we have no budget for advertising jobs or for outreach. That has nothing to do with a vast union plot to keep the number of applicants down. I offered two different ways in which non-union folks could help. Apparently, neither was acceptable to you.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 5:08 PM:Use of the military has been a sticking point for many. I don't know which law it it, but there's a phrase that comes up frequently in firefighting regulation books. That phrase is "non-competition with private enterprise". This archaic concept prevents the state from using military aircraft until all available private aircraft are in use. It's high time we change that. Of course, then we could also use the military for clean up as well. But anyway, I've worked with the military on fires before. It's not the panacea your looking for. There's a reason the military came to the fire department for lessons on how to mobilize quickly. Could (and should) they help? Absolutely...

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 5:09 PM:JF says that CERT was intended to provide ff's assistance, including putting out small fires. Not so. CERT members fill the modern version of the WWI Women's Auxiliary Corps, which could help the troops (morale, cigarettes, logistics) but were not allowed to fight. CERT is in the same situation. In my Scripps Ranch, we had 70 CERT team members train for four years after the Cedar fires, and then failed to activate the unit when fire threatened the subdivision. In essence, CERT members were supposed to evacuate. Actually two members WERE activated -- they were sent to the Mira Mesa HS to help pass out coffee and blankets to evacuees. Believe me, there are a LOT of angry CERT members who now realize that they are not allowed to help with the fires.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 5:11 PM:Bill, all the outreach I've done is at schools across the city. I don't know the kids there from Adam. I just tell them about the job and how to apply. It's certainly not the ONLY way to find out about jobs... sheesh.

Reardon wrote on Dec 26, 2007 6:42 PM:"non-competition with private enterprise". is not applicable, since all San Diego fire fighters are government employees. The military can bring communications, medical, surveillance, lighting, power, and THOUSANDS of volunteer men and women to assist in any disaster to free firefighters to actually fight fires! A CB Battalion can cut huge swaths of fire breaks. Satellite Infra-red can spot fires one minute after they start, and unmanned aerial vehicles like Global Hawk can stay aloft for spotting for 36 straight hours! The taxpayers have paid for these assets. USE THEM!

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 6:55 PM:Um, Richard, I already agreed that CERT could be used more effectively. No need to attack me for that. You say "we" had 70 CERT members in Scripps Ranch. But you have already admitted in other forums that you are not even a member. Guess what? About 200 members from CERT teams across San Diego (every area EXCEPT Scripps Ranch) responded to help free up firefighters for the front lines. Did it help? Absolutely. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:08 PM:Reardon, actually, it's very applicable BECAUSE firefighters are government employees. As I understand it, rules set up during the Depression are intended to allow commercial vendors priority over government and military assets. I'd love to be able to access satellite and UAV data easily. But that's kind of secret info. Remember that this fire jumped an interstate like it was child's play. This fire had the ability to spot about 3 miles ahead of itself. How long would it take to mobilize a CB battalion and cut a three mile wide fire break? Again, I support greater usage of the military, CERT teams, volunteers, zoning ordinances, building codes, etc. But I also have a lot of experience and can see where some of the pitfalls will lie. I don't want to see a lot of money and hope wasted on useless tools.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:33 PM:JF points to the declining number of SD FD applicants (down from 7,000 applicants several years ago to 1,500 or so today) as a decreasing interest in being a ff. But the reason for the decline is the since-added city requirement that one cannot apply unless one has passed the EMT1 medical course certification. THAT extra requirement slashed the number of applications -- not any declining interest in being a ff.

Reardon wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:15 PM:JF: The assets the military use already exist, and have already been paid for by the same taxpayers that pay the firefighters. Prepositioning of assets are no more difficult for the military than for Cal Fire which presumes to preposition equipment in October and November. The Border Patrol uses UAVs TODAY! I'll bet that the Forest Service can get them also. You give lip service to cooperation with others, then give excuses why it would be too difficult to accomplish. Taxpayers in general; and those who lost homes and those whose homes are at future risk in particular, see through this fog, clearly. Next October comes soon enough.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:59 PM:Richard, prospective firefighters need to be trained as EMTs. Remember, you're the "limited government editorial" guy. So now you're saying we should put candidates on salary while we teach them to be EMTs? We used to do it that way, but it was more cost effective to have them get trained first. Who knows, maybe we're just getting the best 1500 candidates now. But given that few of them are even showing up for interviews, we'll never know.

JF wrote on Dec 26, 2007 9:08 PM:Reardon, which is a greater priority for the current administration? Wildland fire? Or Homeland Security? The entire Forest Service budget for fire protection is spent in about 30 hours in Iraq. How about we just "take a break" for a day there and spend the money for the fire service to protect us here at home? That's why the BP has UAVs and the USFS doesn't. You're correct in that the military can preposition assets in October. I welcome that. IMHO, CAL FIRE and the Feds don't preposition enough equipment. But it's a fine line between "wasting money moving stuff around" and having enough "stuff" here when we need it. Over Thanksgiving, about 400 engines and numerous hand crews were prepositioned down here for a week. I'd guess that cost $10 million. There was one major fire and homes were still lost. I do apologize if I sound like I'm giving lip service. Frankly, I'm as frustrated as you. My friends lost homes too. I want to see solutions. But answers aren't easy. Pre-identifying roadblocks can make the road easier.

Reardon wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:00 PM:You seem to believe that the military has no assets that are not utilized in Iraq. They have massive, on-site assets right here, like the 20 helos that were ready for the three Cal Fire observers, leaving 17 unused helos. (That does not count any Marine helos.) The 46 "qualified” observers were ALL Battalion Chiefs -- which were more needed on the fire lines. That was after the 2003 fires, and a Blue Ribbon Committee that decried EXACTLY the same thing in 2003! No answers are not easy, but CB Battalions can be prepositioned, Helos are always ready, and we have not even addressed the Command, Control and Communications; the medical and medical evac; the tens of thousands of disciplined and well-conditioned volunteers; the night capable flying; the field housing and feeding capabilities; the...BIG disasters need BIG capabilities. We now have TWO consecutive disasters for which Cal Fire was NOT prepared. Lead, follow, or get out of the way! Right now Cal Fire bureaucrats are circling the wagons. If the political arm was only as good as their troops.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:47 PM:JF, you missed my point about the EMT requirement reducing the number of ff applicants. I don't have a problem with the EMT-certification-before-applying requirement -- for full-time ff's. But that certification requirement is not needed for volunteer emergency reserve ff's, which the previous 7,000 annual ff applicants indicate are out there in plentiful supply. Yes, the state law may currently include that ff-sponsored EMT requirement, but the law can be changed. After all, prisoners trained to fight brush fires do not have to be EMT certified. Neither should emergency reserve ff's.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:05 PM:JF, you take my criticism of CERT too personally. I don't much care what YOU think -- I care that the fire departments of our local cities simply do not want CERT volunteers to fight fires, large or small. You correctly point out that a few CERT volunteers did indeed do some helpful work in the San Diego 2007 fires. But not ONE CERT volunteer was tasked (or even allowed) to fight fires or even embers.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:12 PM:As JF points out, I did not sign up as a CERT volunteer. After the 2003 fires, I tried to get some interest in a local volunteer reserve ff program, including volunteering myself at age 59. The ff's would have none of it. I was referred to the CERT program. But after investigating CERT's mission statement, it became clear that these volunteers would not be of much use combating fires, due to the severe fire department restrictions on what they would be allowed to do in such emergencies. The 2007 CERT SNAFU confirms that I made the right decision in not joining.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:21 PM:Jason ...


All your comments are the usual paranoid ff delusions about volunteer backup reserve ff's stealing your job. That is simply not a threat! No one is proposing doing away with full-time professional ff's. All we are talking about is SUPPLEMENTING the pros with help when the occasional large brush fire mandates additional resources be marshaled to battle the blaze and protect property.

JF wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:41 AM:Richard, fire departments and unions "artificially" keeping the numbers of applicants down to keep pay up was one of the points of the original article. Remember? "Semi-secret job openings"? The number of applications for firefighter jobs has nothing to do with your proposed reserve force.

JF wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:44 AM:Richard, you talk about the investigating the CERT mission statement thoroughly, including the fact that they weren't to be used on firelines, but then claim there was a "2007 CERT SNAFU". About 200 CERT team members from across the city helped the SDFD immensely by allowing full time firefighters to get back on the fireline. Isn't that exactly what they were intended to do?

JF wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:46 AM:Richard, in this forum, you state that you're not proposing to do away with the pros. However, in other forums you've stated, "I'll agree to stricter zoning and building code changes if you agree to eliminate half the fire department". You've gone on and on about how the fire station nearest your house isn't needed and that a second fire station in the area is a waste of money, even though the city needs 22 additional fire stations. So yes, you are proposing eliminating paid firefighters in favor of volunteers.

fire leadership wrote on Dec 27, 2007 7:38 AM:Look to Australia and Ventura County for fire protection leadership. Ventura County has 500,000 people in their fire plan. Ventura County has its own independent fire department; not CalFire. Both Australia and Ventura County practice Go Early or Stay and Defend which is for all types of homes, both OLD and new. Look to SD County Fire Safe Councils working in areas with OLD and new homes. Shelter-In-Place (SIP) is for new homes built in specific SIP communities with stringent fire safety regulations that homeowners must follow. Every stakeholder (homeowner), old house, new house, SIP house, needs to be involved, educated, and trained about wildfire. CalFire executives need to learn about Australia’s governmental fire policies and their positive statistics. CalFire missed opportunities to make improvements from 2003 to 2007. CalFire must think scientifically, use common sense, make necessary improvements, and include the human factor. Yes to: training the stakeholders (homeowners), defensible space, fire resistant building materials, fire resistant plants, fire resistant gel on the exterior of homes, removing brush with help from prisoners, boxed eaves, etc. Those that decide to Go Early must also be involved with defensible space, fire resistant plants, cleaned out rain gutters, boxed eaves, etc. Professional firefighters say the stakeholders will be in their way. The stakeholders need education and training and then are part of the solution. Australia and other nearby areas have many old homes and have a high success with the Go Early or Stay and Defend government policy.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 27, 2007 7:47 AM:JF, speaking of helping recruit new San Diego city ff's, my organization, San Diego Tax Fighters, PAID for a San Diego CraigsList employment ad for the job. Apparently ff's complained to CraigsList about the ad, and had it removed. This act speaks volumes about the ff union's opposition to expanding the applicant pool.

The good news is that they removed the ad in San Diego, but not the Sacramento ad we also placed on CraigsList, seeking applicants for the SD FD. It's a rather gonzo ad, laying out the truth about the benefits of becoming a ff. It's factual, but also a fun read. To read the ad before ff's whine to have it taken down as well, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/2vr8st

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 27, 2007 8:03 AM:JF, I never have said my local Scripps Ranch fire station 'wasn't needed', and you know it. I said that, on average, the station gets only two calls per 24 day for ALL matters -- false alarms, medical, car accidents and the occasional fire (once every 6 days on average). My point is that the ff job (at least in my area) is damned easy. And the proposed second fire station in Scripps Ranch is simply ludicrous -- indeed a total waste of money.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 27, 2007 8:14 AM:JF, you see my opposition to a 50% increase in the number of professional San Diego ff's as 'proposing eliminating paid firefighters.' By that thinking, opposition to a limitless number of professional $100K+ ff's is calling for 'eliminating paid firefighters.' Odd reasoning, by most standards, but I suppose perfectly understandable from your position as a labor union ff.

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 27, 2007 8:23 AM:JF, even by the restricted CERT mission statement, the 2007 fires included a huge CERT SNAFU. The SD FD stores older fire engines 'in mothballs' at the Kearny Mesa fire station. Too late, the senior department management decided that, given the roaring flames and 60 MPH winds, just maybe they should get the engines ready for use. Then they called in only a handful of CERT volunteers to help with getting the engines' ready, leaving recalled ff's restlessly standing around waiting for functional engines to take to the fires. The bosses simply did not see any advantage to calling in more eager CERT volunteers to get the engines ready faster. Doubtless scores of homes were lost because of this inexcusable delay. BTW, this scandalous story has NEVER been covered by the press.

Reardon wrote on Dec 27, 2007 9:22 AM:The time has come to work this problem out of the box. Most responses are medical, and the national medical required response for a heart attack, for example, is 4 minutes. The average speed of a huge $400,000 fire truck is about 25MPH, and the Firefighting "response time" is only measured from the time the wheels roll until they stop. An EMT should first be sent on motorcycle or quad runner or even passenger vehicle -- with an AED! That would save the building and staffing of $4 million fire stations that are designed, built and staffed just to cut down the medical “response time.". There are many such monetary savings available in the Fire service area, while increasing the life and building saving response. For truly huge disasters, only National Guard/military assets can help, although the ability of homeowners to fight their own small fires can supplement the professional ff staff.

Reardon wrote on Dec 27, 2007 10:40 AM:Just as we can never have enough police to stop all crime, we can never have sufficient firefighting assets to protect all homes. Police provide retribution, not protection -- and firefighters limit damage (SOMETIMES, but it is up to people to provide their own protection against fire and crime. The problem in fire is that we have so many legacy homes that are not fire resistant, but homeowners can retrofit to some degree, those with available water can use gel in extremis, and, since most fires are started by embers, many can Stay and Defend if they have the resources and health to do so. I know the union wants no one to do anything, and everyone to fund 100,000 more union firefighters -- it ain't gonna' happen! The cat is out of the bag on alternatives.

TheGunny wrote on Dec 27, 2007 2:22 PM:Wow, there has been some serious sparring over this issue for the last few days.
Gentlemen, if I may interject some info, then you can beat me about the face and chest.
The accusation that firefighters secretly withholding the announcements for jobs is insane, at best. As a former active duty firefighter, we had unlimited announcements sent to us daily at MCAS Miramar. This information helped young Marines and Sailors transition to a solid civilian career.
Thanks, let the beatings continue....

esteban wrote on Dec 27, 2007 2:27 PM:JF and Richard Rider sound like a couple of sniveling whiners. i'm glad firefighters make good money. Cops should make more money too. Jealous????

JF wrote on Dec 27, 2007 2:45 PM:Reardon, the quick response time is not just for medical emergencies. A fire essentially doubles in size in each of the first few minutes. The NFPA recommendations have to do with fire growth and the tasks that need to be completed on a fire ground, not EMS calls. Your idea about using motorcycles does have some merit -- but as an adjuct to additional firefighters and fire engines, not as a replacement. Go look at the "City Lights" story this week in the Reader about the fire in Point Loma earlier this month. The oft repeated quote, "Where are the firefighters?" A couple of weeks ago there were three 2 alarm fires within a week's time. Each of those fires takes about 20% of the city's resources. We need to increase the number of paid firefighters available for even day to day emergencies.

Reardon wrote on Dec 27, 2007 4:28 PM:JF: My emphasis on medical is because actual firefighting is only about 5% -- 10% of the job. Medical response is by far the majority of the job, and the most important in response time because the medical community says that in response to heart attacks (the most likely), if the medical response is not within 4 minutes, you might just as well bring a white sheet. Obviously, that is the most critical response time vs structure fires. Just looking at the most likely, and the most critical, medical is IT!

Hank wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:46 PM:Reardon is onto something. It really makes no sense to have a fire engine, complete with fully garbed firefighters dispatched to a pure medical call when there is no threat of environmental hazard, need for extrication, etc. You don't really need a fire engine and crew when someone goes down in a private residence or shopping mall. Medically, it makes more sense to put your life in the hands of a specialist paramedic who is not a jack-of-all trades (medic, firefighter, rescuer, etc). Wonder what the lives-saved, and lives-lost by firefighter-paramedics is compared to medical-only-paramedics. Wonder what the salvage rate is for firefighter-paramedics compared to civilians trained in CPR with or without AEDs (automated external defibrillators). The most important factor in cardiac-lives-saved is not the paramedic, but the rapidity with which CPR and defibrillation are applied by bystanders or minimally trained, but rapidly deployed EMTs. Maybe it's time to separate fire from medicine in the boondocks, as it already is in the city. Maybe we should confine our firefighter-paramedics to fighting fires and providing emergency medical services to those injured in fires and/or in need of extrication or rescue.

Hank wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:55 PM:Alas, it seems that not just CalFire, but all BIG FIRE bureaucracies want neither volunteer firefighters aiding career firefighters on the line, nor homeowners dousing embers before they burn the house down. Until we get past this, the 2009 or 2010 big fire will burn a lot more homes, and cost another 10-20 lives. No one doubts the bravery and skill of our line firefighters, whatever firehouse they call home. That said, the bureaucracy called CalFire is the dominant obstacle to fire-hardening rural Southern California.

TheGunny wrote on Dec 27, 2007 9:26 PM:Hank, your fantasy world is disturbing and dangerous in real time.
A fire engine can gain more ground in it's district than an ambulance which may be farther away. The firefighters do not show up to fight fire, please pay more attention to what you see. They deal with bloodborne pathogens, and airborne diseases just like the box medics.
If you want the stats for saves vs losses call the County of San Diego EMS office. They license ALL paramedics in this county regardless of affiliation.
Think before you drink from the Rider KoolAid well. Hey here's a really bright idea, get off your duff and go to a firehouse and ask the hard questions.

The Gunny wrote on Dec 27, 2007 9:31 PM:To most of the Anti professional firefighter posters here, be well advised that if you, for one moment think that the IAFF or any firefighting organization dictates tactics on the line, then you, once again, need to push away from the Kool Aid well and wake up.
The firfighters don't want homeowners staying behind, because they get trapped, injured and then what do they have to do, save them, then Reardon, hank , and Dick whine that the BIG UNIONS got in the way and caused undo loss of property. Please stop the BS and come down from the ivory tower.

JF wrote on Dec 27, 2007 9:46 PM:Hank, Gunny put it pretty well, but let me add one comment. How do you know what you have until you get there? All medical personnel are trained to err on the side of the patient, and that's just what we do. Perhaps the simple slip and fall is a 300 pounder with a broken pelvis on the third floor of a walk-up. A "working" chest pain or CHF patient can easily take all four on the engine and two on the ambulance working on the patient. Sometimes those calls come in as 'sick person'. Who knows? Again, I like Reardon's idea of rapid response vehicles, but as an additional response (like LA County), not as a replacement. And... for the doubters, in about 1993 we tried switching between a Suburban for medical aids and the engine for fires to save wear and tear. Worked great - until a house burned down because the first in engine was in a Suburban a block from the fire, but didn't have the fire engine with them.

Hank wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:22 AM:Gunny and JF - Ambulances in one form or another MUST come to the scene anyways, since almost always, fire engines do not transport patients. Who said that ambulances have to be "farther away?" Place them in strategically located "EMShouses" around the district. Could be next to "firehouses." Whatever. I submit that daily experience SPECIALIZED to sharps precautions/gloves/masks, ET intubation, non-surgical vascular access, limited PO/IM/IV/intraosseous med administration, manual defibrillation, and all the other stuff medical and paramedical people do, makes for more competent (medical and) paramedical personnel. Let the firefighters do the fire prevention work, maintain fire equipment, and fight FIRES. You do not have to be a firefighter to use a jaws of life or a metal cutting chain saw. A paramedic should be part of the HEALTH CARE system, just like a physician assistant, nurse, nurse practitioner, and physician. A paramedic should be a health professional specializing in extrication and keeping acutely ill/traumatized patients alive until the rest of the team takes over. That is a 100% professional committment, just like other health care professionals. By the way, that was a rhetorical question - it is becoming well-established the CPR trained citizens and first responder EMTs at the BLS level with AEDs are far more important in the survival of vfib patients than ACLS paramedics. The first 4 minutes is critical. Our emergency services system is broken, and it is going to get worse as both younger and older citizens move into the boondocks, far from medical care. We HAVE TO think outside the box. I have been inside a firehouse. I have treated sick, injured, and dying patients. I know about medicine. That is not ivory tower BS. Firefighters viewing homeowners as liabilities rather than stakeholders in a FIRE situation - that is a topic for another day. BY the way, I disagree with much of what Rider has to say. Later.

Reardon wrote on Dec 28, 2007 9:45 AM:I have no interest in getting rid of professional firefighters, just in reorganizing the service from the top to the bottom, The 2003 and 2007 fire disasters demonstrated the need for RAPID supplementation of the professional forces -- Joyas Ct. in Poway lost three $3 million homes, and no firefighters were ever there, but one homeowner family (who could not save their own home), saved two other multi-million homes! (Including one that I have a persona interest in, and am still cleaning up.) The professional forces are much like the professional military -- their job is a hold the line until the "reserves" fill the holes. In firefighting, we have to DRIVE the "reserves" (slowly) into place, while HUGE assets are already here, unused, and the military has HUGE airlift capability to get other "reserves" here quickly. The SYSTEM is broken, and while 50% improved from 2003 to 2007, it is STILL broken. The pieces of the system, firefighters themselves, are excellent -- but the SYSTEM is broken! The whole thing needs massive reorganization. Time to break some rice bowls.

stay and defend wrote on Dec 28, 2007 12:03 PM:Use Stay and Defend or Go Early. That is Australia govt policy as well as Ventura County Calif USA. Ventura is not CalFire. There are 500,000 people. OLD houses have a chance to survive in this plan even if the homeowners Go Early. Everyone participates year-round by having defensible space, clean gutters, boxed eaves, etc. etc. With information and training, the homeowners (stakeholders) become part of the solution. Trained mature volunteer FF are also needed. FF will still have their job; FF pilots will still have their job.

JF wrote on Dec 28, 2007 12:08 PM:Hank, you're absolutely correct about civilians and AEDs being critical in the survival chain.Witness the SDFD Project Heartbeat program to see how we're addressing that issue.There are currently roughly 46 engine companies, 12 truck companies and 20 or so ambulances scattered around the city.Those 46 engine companies still need to be in place to ensure timely response to fires.Many of the ambulances are moved around the city minute by minute to fill holes.So by your suggestion, we should keep the engines but double the number of ambulances to ensure they get there first? Second point -- what happens when your "health care provider" paramedic is extricating a patient from a vehicle and a fire starts? My point here is that the whole reason that paramedics are on fire engines is that we can get there quickly and need to be there anyway. Oh, and my record is 10 IV starts and 2 intubations in a day -- certainly enough to keep my skills up.

JF wrote on Dec 28, 2007 12:48 PM:Hank, Reardon and folks. Hank said something very wise when he wrote, "Firefighters viewing homeowners as liabilities rather than stakeholders..." That's EXACTLY the problem in these large fires. All firefighters are taught from the first day in the academy that human life is the first priority, followed by property. The only non-international traveler fatalities in this fire were people who stayed behind. Fire officers don't have a choice about who stays behind, but they do have a choice to initiate an evacuation. They likely won't get sued if a home burns down, but likely will get sued if someone dies because they didn't order an evacuation. Most of the fire officers I've spoken with feel that homeowners could save their own homes or their neighbors. But life is always first over property. That concept and not politics is why we evacuate. That concept and not politics is why we resist allowing untrained reserve firefighters or CERT members to fight fires. It's not politics -- it's life.

Reardon wrote on Dec 28, 2007 1:11 PM:The first thing we need to do is to get everyone involved in their own medical and fire protection. The current firefighters paternalistic attitude is, "Just get out our way, Little People, and we will take care of you." Well they wont, or in the case of the 2007 fiasco, can't. Too few, too thin, too busy, too overwhelmed, too late. The professionals have entirely too much to do in extremis, and, truth be known, even in normal emergencies. AEDs are CHEAP -- neighborhoods that are primarily elderly should have them in their homes, with special colored street numbers on the curb, so neighbors can use the AED if needed until the Paramedic gets on-scene. Wildfires are huge and no one can stop them, professional or not, but homeowners can construct their homes to SIP standards, and, yes, homeowners can combat embers. Or, they can gel and go, but they must be part of the overall solution! If the firefighters demand that I leave my home, then they can take the financial responsibility if it burns! Until they take that responsibility, I will determine my actions!

Hank wrote on Dec 28, 2007 1:50 PM:JF - you raise important points. I no way questioned any individual paramedic's mechanical skill set. I assume that you have developed clinical skills to go along with your mechanical skills. My point is that development of that CLINICAL skill set requires a lot of intensive and focused training and experience (including making mistakes). That's why the average physician spends 7 years or more just in school and residency after 4 years of college. I am happy to hear that SD has addressed the placement of ambulances/paramedics for best response time in medical emergencies. Any improvement to fix the broken system WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES. That may mean more ambulances as the sprawl of communities increases. We must separate the calls which may require (potentially hazardous) extrication or rescue of an individual from "straight" medical calls, e.g., patient down in their own (stable) home environment or (stable) shopping mall, for example. The latter requires prompt emergency MEDICAL treatment and has neglible risk of escalating into a fire or other hazardous environment. The extrication which escalates into a fire is a valid point to consider. Maybe extrication is firefighter-paramedic stuff, maybe not. The part that concerns me is we MUST do a better job of TRIAGE and DEPLOYMENT if we are to improve survival of cardiac dysrhythmia patients. That is the main reason for rapid EMS response time. We all know that the majority of acute medical problems correct themselves, sometimes in spite of our interventions. It is the minority of the medical EMS calls which themselves are 80=90% of all EMS calls where we can save lives. By the way, as you know, the NFPA standard for EMS first responder calls is that the response time for 90% of the calls be 4 minutes or less. It seems that 8 to 9 minutes is the rule in many, if not most districts. Coupled with the medical data that 4 minutes is critical for vfib survival, it would sure seem that we have work to do.

JF wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:34 PM:Reardon, there's only one true SIP neighborhood that I know of in SD County. And guess what, no homes there burned. If you haven't noticed, I'm a huge supporter of zoning and building code changes. SIP takes a lot of work. Are you willing to ban all evergreens from existing neighborhoods? Ban the traditional cedar slat fence? (aka wicks) Force existing homeowners to spend thousands to box their eaves? By the way, the city of SD tried to get building code changes implemented after the last fires. Who opposed that? Rider's own Scripps Ranch neighborhood -- even after losing hundreds of homes there. Again, if I save your life by forcing you to leave and your house burns down? I've done my duty of protecting life first. That's not a paternalistic attitude -- that's the difference between the military and us. We have no ratio of "acceptable losses" in human life.

Hank wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:34 PM:JF - I am only aware of one individual, Mr. Varshock of Tecate, who tragically died in the Harris fire after being told to evacuate. Any additional info would be appreciated. I could not find details other than he returned to his house after being told to leave. I am aware of many homes saved from embers by homeowners without loss of homeowner life. A homeowner who tries to be a firefighter and save his non-defensible house from flames is part of the problem. I believe we agree on that. Consider a house that is fire-resistant (building codes, etc) and HAS DEFENSIBLE SPACE (proper brush and other fuel mitigation). Consider a homeowner who is willing, able, has the proper equipment (auxiliary water & power, etc) and is educated in the techniques and risks of Stay and Defend or Go Early. I believe that homeowner can defend against embers. SUFFICIENT defensible space ensures that the house will not be ignited by direct flame contact or radiant heating. That house will defend the homeowner during the few minutes that it takes for the flame front to pass. That is well-established fire physics in wildland fires. In my opinion, that homeowner is NOT part of the problem, he is part of the solution to fire safety in the wildland-urban-interface. He is not a liability; he is a stakeholder. That concept is already policy in in Australasia and some areas in the US

JF wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:45 PM:Hank, you may not be aware of this, but the SDFD dispatch center has won awards for its call screening protocol. SDFD paramedics perform 12 lead EKGs in the field to allow rapid triage and treatment of dysrhythmias in an appropriate facility. Are we as knowledgeable as MD's? Of course not -- well, not ER docs anyway. The problem is that there is no such thing as a "straight" medical call. There's no reliable way to tell ahead of time if the patient is having gas or a MI. In the event of an MI, the entire medic and fire crew are all needed all the way to the hospital. There's no reliable way to tell if the patient is on the third floor of a walkup -- and weighs 300 lbs while having that MI. So -- we err on the side of the patient and send the full complement. With critical patients, all six responders are busy with patient treatment and the logistics of moving the patient. There are a lot of ways to improve the system, both EMS and fire sides. Alas, most take money.

Reardon wrote on Dec 28, 2007 4:22 PM:This conversation has strayed far from the original article, in which specific citations were made where open positions for firefighting were not widely advertised. That was certainly true for the situations cited. I have no idea how widespread those situations are, but they are certainly true in some cases. Now that the subject has been broached, it will be more difficult to do "private placement" in the future. Rider deserves credit for exposing the problem, but as the remainder of the discussion demonstrates, there is more than needs to be addressed. We may disagree as to how to fix it, but the discussion is healthy and much needed. We have seen too many problems repeated. It is time to make some new mistakes -- the old ones, well...if you keep doing what you've been doing, you will keep getting...

Richard Rider wrote on Dec 28, 2007 4:59 PM:An interesting problem never discussed is that we use the old style fire truck/fire station for what is now primarily