I’d Probably Put the Fire Out”
DEPARTMENTS
EDITOR’S OPINION
At the risk of reopening a volatile and sensitive can of worms, I can’t let all the responses received on my March editorial go by without some additional comment. (The editorial, “A Giant Step Backward,” addressed the incident of a subscription fire company withholding suppression services because the annual fee was not paid.)
While some of you did agree with my position, I was surprised that most of you support the slogan “No subscription, no suppression service.” (Several replies will appear in June’s Letters to the Editor column.) Actually, I was more than surprised. I was shocked and dispirited. How could anyone who swore to protect and preserve life and property stand by and watch another’s possessions destroyed?
Yes, I know, subscription fire departments date back to Ben Franklin. But haven’t we made any strides since 1736? Haven’t we progressed at all beyond the old required firemark?
Ignoring the one or two hysterical, irresponsible, and often maniacal comments, I phoned many of you who wrote. We spoke at length, and, in every case, an understanding for both sides of the controversy was reached, and there was a sympathetic nod on both ends of the phone.
We all agreed that a severe problem exists when the sole funding base for an area’s fire protection lies in voluntary contributions. Not only the bare minimum of equipment but, in most cases, the fuel necessary to arrive at the scene depends on this funding. When you couple this with a few personal stories of public apathy, these facts do paint a truly frustrating picture for the dedicated firefighter; and extreme measures for such situations are indeed necessary.
The act of not responding (regarded as deviant behavior by most departments on both sides of the Hudson), could serve as one dramatic measure that, if properly publicized, should enlist the subscription donations of the “holdouts.” However, once on the emergency scene, it was agreed that some action must be taken. This would not only strike a blow for humanity, but would divert the negative publicity away from the firefighters and onto the “system” under which those firefighters are forced to work.
A system that permits, if not demands that its organization do nothing to reverse the fire or emergency conditions to which it responds must be changed. The emergency responder should never be faced with a decision to serve or not to serve based on the payment record of the human being he strives to protect.
If legislation is necessary to mandate adequate funding for firefighting services, then let’s all demand it. There is probably no more powerful group within our states than the emergency responder and his sympathetic and enthusiastic following. A following that grew and flourished because of the dedicated efforts of all of you who, when asked point blank what you would have done if you had the nozzle in your hand, answered: “I’d probably put the fire out.”