RES24CUE

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.
In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:
The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5! The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles. Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door) Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire. What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.
The differences however are major!
There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene. There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year). The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department. 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set. I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.
In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:
The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5! The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles. Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door) Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire. What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.
The differences however are major!
There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene. There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year). The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department. 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set. I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.
In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:
The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5! The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles. Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door) Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire. What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.
The differences however are major!
There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene. There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year). The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department. 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set. I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.
In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:
The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5! The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles. Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door) Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire. What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.
The differences however are major!
There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene. There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year). The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department. 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set. I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the side-by-side example of a consolidated volunteer department that sits right next door to the town in which this fire occurred. The town of Somers and the Town of Lewisboro have very similar constructs but have gone in opposite directions in terms of a consolidated department vs individual departments. Somers is about the same size as the Town of Lewisboro. They have 4 fire houses spread across town but operate as one department, with one chain of command, one set of SOPs, one fire district and consolidated resources. Conversely, in the Town of Lewisboro, they have the Golden's Bridge Fire Department, the South Salem Fire Department, and the Vista Fire Department (and the Lewisboro Ambulance Corps). Each of these departments are completely independent of one another and have their own chain of command, separate Fire District, separate equipment and their own set of SOGs.
In my opinion the consolidated volunteer department makes more sense for the following reasons:
The town of Lewisboro has 3 Mid-Heavy Rescue Units (Counting Rescue 24 may it rest in peace)...All of NYC has 5! The town of Lewisboro has 7+ Chief Vehicles. Each department in Lewisboro has at least 2 "Class A" engines so that they can stay in service when one goes out for maintenance. 90% of the time each engine rolls without a full crew anyway (thats if they can even get two engines out the door) Shortage of Officers. When I joined the fire service 10 years ago Vista Fire Department had 3 chiefs and a multiple captains, Lieutenants and Foremen, etc...now they are down to 3 officers (a chief, a captain, and a lieutenant). I believe that GBFD currently operates with two of their Lt. positions vacant. Moreover, many departments' by-laws are constantly being set aside to allow people who don't meet the professional qualifications to hold office. In many instances, members are being promoted to officer positions after being a member for only a year and having never been first-due to a car fire let alone a structure fire. What it all comes down to here is that you are ultimately going to get the same resources to a fire in both towns. In Somers you will probably get 20-30 members town-wide who will all respond to a daytime incident. In Lewisboro, you will get 10 members from the "host" department and 5-6 from each of the other 2 departments in town via mutual aid.
The differences however are major!
There will be a delay in resources because you have to wait for the host department to get on scene to dispatch mutual aid...they will have to operate with 4-6 people for at least the first 10-15 minutes until mutual aid can respond to their firehouses and then to the scene. There will be way too many Chiefs on scene because there will be 3 from each of the other departments in town...and not enough indians because anyone who is even remotely good will be a chief already (side note...I think Croton Falls had command on this last Goldens Bridge fire and at their firehouse fire last year). The manpower from the three independent departments will be less familiar with the equipment and personnel from the other departments than that of the one consolidated department. 3 sets of SOGs vs one consolidated set. I thought the side-by-side comparison may help clear up the confusion that a consolidated department would have to be paid. The Town of Somers could probably have ended up as the Granite Springs, Amawalk, Lincoldale, and Town of Somers fire departments had they wanted to go that route...for all I know they may have been at some point way back when.

You know the consolidation of volunteer departments without the addition of any paid personnel could be a significant improvement over the completely arcane system we have now. Everyone immediately assumes that consolidation implies paid but it doesn't! How about merging 4-5 districts that serve the same town? Or the countless villages that rely heavily on each other and are smaller than a postage stamp.
Imagine a River Towns or Sound Shore or North County Fire District with several former departments under one hierarchy. Economies of scale in purchasing, reduction of apparatus numbers (and the ability to have "spares", something virtually non-existent outside the big cities), higher personnel counts, standard training, administration and operations, to name a few.
A member department with strengths in one area can help one weak in that area and so on. Officers can be vetted from a larger pool of candidates improving the quality, competition, and ultimately performance. Chiefs will oversee a bigger department giving them more experience. Budgets can be consolidated perhaps reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.
There's a lot to be said for consolidating and it doesn't mean adding ONE paid guy.

Spot on.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

To me all the "grief" is look at all the departments you are stripping. Your taking a large amount of manpower and rigs for a private dwelling fire, to me that ridiculous

I think we have to consider the fact that this site may have run its course as many end up doing. In addition, as a few have mentioned, many of the topics posted do not require much of a discussion if any.

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

Liked your post even though you don't like that...sorry

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I just want to clarify (I'm not arguing with you as I agree 100% with what you said, just realized that I didn't explain where I was coming from with the paid-chauffeur comment)...I was not promoting the addition of a paid chauffeur. I think that this is a natural in-between step (wrong or right) in the transition process. I was a member of a fire company in SE Connecticut when I was in college that had paid chauffeurs on during the day (M-F 7a-5p). What has happened since? It evolved into a paid Chauffeur and an officer. Then became a paid chauffeur, an officer, and a firefighter. AND they added a late shift (2 Shifts, 7-3 & 3-11) Now they are on the verge of being a paid department. I think the chauffeur is the first step in the evolutionary process. The departments hire a "custodian" or a "building manager" to help out during the day but just so happens to be a FF/EMT and have a CDL (I know you don't need one in NY, just making the point that he's a truck driver). This business is slow to change and must improvement will come slowly. These places aren't going to change from volunteer to paid overnight like the flip of a light switch...especially not with the inertia that will be created by the past volunteers who "have been serving selflessly for over 100 years." Unfortunately, their selfless devotion just doesn't cut it anymore.

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

You hit the nail on the head chkpoint!

Your entire post was Spot on, with one exception, the sentence above.
Paid chauffeurs also hide the problem. Wow look how fast the FD got on scene but still no one to take care of the problem. And as you said full time staffing is not financially viable based on the call volume. And many of these VFD's are doing no better at night.
When their are 2, 3 , 4 departments in town.....consolidate. then not everyone is trying to staff 2 engines and a truck and rescue. Then if needed add a paid company to handle all the BS that is a problem. Then and only then if you need to go fully paid, you can do it with fewer rigs covering a larger area and it becomes cost effective.

I think the biggest pit fall of this forum has been that many people on here promote "a pat on the back" for anything and everything. A "like button" which is pressed for posting an incident or any other thread. People are constantly looking for kudos every time they make a post and that clearly isn't going to happen. It is innate for human beings to disagree for the most part and most people have a difficult time coping with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with their opinions and may not get positive reinforcement. A wise man said a long time ago that "it has become appalling obvious that technology has exceeded humanity" and since that time it appears to have become harder and harder to engage another human in a conversation or any type of debate. For the most part all of us on here are buffs and trying to hone our skills and knowledge. So why be upset when someone tells you got screwed up or tells you their opinion of what they would've done??? Why not debate the circumstances and listen to their opinion. Maybe they've been in the same situation and seen the same outcome and maybe, just maybe you could pick up something you didn't even think about. Most arguments are misunderstandings anyway. A perfect example is the argument ongoing as I type this response. Rescue24 has made a post and although I may agree and disagree to certain parts, that clearly does not mean he isn't entitled to his opinion. I've noticed that most of the people who are actually willing to debate are kicked off the site because somebody cried about one of their responses. Now you're left with nobody to debate with and a pat on the back for everyone else's bullshit. Everyone who wanted to debate and learn something or just argue their opinions have left. Now it's just robots hitting a like button.
I don't have facebook or twitter, or anything of that nature because I feel it would be the bane of my existence but from looking at a few fire wires and such, I really don't see people debating topics on there either so I really see no reason for this site to be dead. Let's all communicate with each other and we'll actually accomplish something we didn't even think was possible.
Let's all get together and design a Turing machine which will solve this Enigma!!! LOL

The problem that presents itself is a paradox. Not enough fires per square mile to justify full-time, paid fire departments (and the costs of benefits, retirement, etc.)...but not so few fires that we can just count our losses and ignore the problem entirely. Your typical volunteer crew of 5 guys (or gals), 2 or 3 who have a bit of experience and a level head on their shoulders can typically handle your run-of-the-mill calls for food on the stove, a residential lock-out, or a car into the ditch. But when there is a fire every 2-3 years and that crew of 3 or 5 guys simply will not suffice. They do the best that they can and either one guy makes a good call and puts the line in the right place to make a stop...or, they chase the fire from window to window around the house until it eventually goes out (we have all seen it). Either way, the fires happen so infrequently that the public doesn't even realize that there is a problem. There were 5 fires in my town (with 3 independent departments) in 2013-2014 and all 5 of the buildings (one of which was one of the firehouse) were heavily damaged if not completely destroyed by fire.
I think there is a serious problem with the volunteer fire service (at least in my area). The chiefs, officers, and members of the fire departments are hiding their manpower shortages in an effort to protect their department's longstanding tradition. They are afraid that, if the public knows how bad things really are, then they will be uprooted from their firehouses and replaced with paid firemen. The chief will lose his spot as chief (along with his power and his car), the men will lose their "clubhouse," and the longstanding tradition of the department that they enjoy so much will be a thing of the past. They will have, in their eyes, failed as a department...
I read a lot of articles about manpower shortages or interviews with chiefs where they consistently say things like "we can always use more volunteers and manpower is low at present but we continue to respond to every alarm." To me, this means that the chief goes to every alarm and one or two guys to the firehouse during the day to get a utility or mini-attack out the door. I know of many fire departments around that "respond to every alarm" where the chiefs all sign on, then go to the firehouse, get a rig, sign that rig on as well, and they have 5 units on the road but only have 3 people (Shhhh...it's a secret!). Again, the chief is cloaking the manpower problem by saying that they never miss a response. And, to the county it looks like they have stellar responses when in fact they don't.
Another way that departments hide their manpower shortages is by saying that they have "50 members on the roster" when, in reality, only 3-5 are very active. If you look at the websites of some of these departments under the "members" section they have tremendous lists of firefighters; but half of these people haven't been seen in more than 5 years. On the department's website for my town (of which I was previously a member) there are a few people listed as members who are dead (NOT EVEN KIDDING!). So when the town supervisor or a concerned citizen looks at the website and see all those names they think everything is great, when, in reality, it is just a facade.
Lastly, I always hear chiefs in the paper saying "we averaged 15 people per alarm last year (month, week, etc.)". How many of those people are qualified interior firefighters? I know that when I was a member, the Chief would tell the fire district every month that the department "averaged 12 members per call the previous month." 4 of the 12 were fire police in their '80s who came to every call; 3-4 of the 12 were junior members; and the rest were the chiefs and a few stragglers per call. Again, this "average" number is an illusion to hide the fact that departments these days just don't cut it.
I think fire chiefs and fire departments are coming up with inventive ways to hide manpower shortages because the solution to the problem is not desirable to them. They are stalling because they think things will get better on their own (I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say "manpower comes in waves") where, in reality, you might get a good year or two with the addition of a few good members but the fact of the matter is that manpower has been on a steady decline for years. The real solution to the problem is going to eventually be the addition of a few paid chauffeurs to get the trucks out during the day, then eventually going to full-time staffing during the day. Then the volunteers can take over at night when there are more guys around who come home from work. But, the longer the volunteer leadership can hold off the better because they get to hold on to their little men's club and the pride of 100 years of service by their organization. They don't want the intrusion of paid firefighters in their space, they don't want paid vs. volunteer battles, they don't want union issues, and they don't want to be thrown out. Firefighting is fun and those of us who love it really enjoy doing what we do. If they bring in career firefighters, the volunteers won't get to do what they love to do anymore, be firemen. So they have to hide it to hold on to their job. Hopefully, no one will have to lose their life to evince change like we see everywhere else on this job!

This guy stands by what he said. My post had no profanity, racism, crudeness, or anything that should be censored. Once again, I know that my posts my be extremely unpopular (esp. for an emergency services website). That said, it is important to express opinions in open, and uncensored forums (both positive and negative) so that law enforcement is aware how everyone views them and not just their supporters (I'm sure there are other people out there with varying, milder degrees of my extreme opinion). When we start to censor these ideas we threaten the free thinking ideas on which our country was founded and enter the realm of Cuba or Soviet Union. If I were dropping f-bombs, n-bombs, selling illegal stun guns, and promoting incest it would be one thing...but I think we are all adults here and can handle a negative post with strong wording about how I feel police are undereducated for the role. So keep reporting those posts Stalin...and make sure you vote for Hillary in 2016 while you are at it!

I used to check this site more when the incident threads were up to date. There was a time when it seemed like at three in the afternoon or three in the morning emtbravo had good, detailed posts about every fire or pin job (anything significant where mutual aid was called). I work in an office where I can't monitor the pager all day so it was really great to know what was going on in the county. No one ever posts these anymore so I don't bother checking this as my resource. Now I check lohud or my local paper instead.
For me, the threads always turned into one of the following...
1. Career vs. Volunteer arguments
2. Everyone patting each other on the back for no reason
Boooorrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!
Plus, I kept getting put on moderator watch where my posts had to be approved before they went into the threads for having unpopular opinions. For a past volunteer who is now getting back into it again I have very anti-emergency services views because I think that the volunteer fire system here in Westchester is seriously broken and am in favor of consolidation. That said, just because my opinions are negative and unpopular does not mean that they are wrong. When I sent a note to Seth asking why I was being censored he did not even bother to respond. So i seldom waste my time anymore.

I myself stopped checking this site frequently a while ago. When I saw this topic I couldn't agree more. What drove this site in the early years was that buffs (and I say that in a positive way. all of us in emergency service are buffs. Just some little more then others.) was that all fires and big incident were listed. Those of us not near a scanner or too far north or too far south could read updates and get some photos. Now when you have FB and Twitter with up to date fire wires or emergency wire (nyc fire wire, kempter and Westchester fire wire constantly updating from emergency personnel in the field. Especially since smart phones make it easy to check and post on social media, this site died. Majority of people that were here wanted updates on incidents so social media changed that. Then the volly vs career in every topic killed things. Then asking for money and Seth having problems personally and publicly added to it. Many people seem to have a problem with the founder. Many people left and abandoned the site. The list of the usernames is misleading now. A few years ago I messaged and asked to delete my old username and stated why. I got no reply from Seth or any admin after several messages to them. So that sealed it for me and I noticed the decline was in full swing anyway. I created my current name. When I check and see something worth reading maybe I'll post. But more and more to me the site is dead.