I'm not understanding why the dogs and cat weren't removed by the owners. The stories say numerous 911 calls were made and it took 2 hours for the fire to get to the house, unless they're confused and it took a total of 2 hours from the start of the fire until it burned to the ground.
Fire Department lets house burn
- Thread starter tunes
- Start date
Help Support Chinchilla & Hedgehog Pet Forum:
Jenn
ZooKeeper
Minrex, I don't think I literally meant the whole country, lol. It's just incredibly sad to see something like this happening anywhere.
~SG~
Orchestrating Chaos
I was kinda confused by this as well. Most trailers go up extremely fast, so I'm thinking two hours for the yard and house to burn??
I am also very confused as to why the animals weren't removed sooner and why they were not mentioned in the first story.....
addictedtochins
Socially inept
Wow what a story! We live in Kootenai county which is quiet large and populated but our Fire District is called Timberlake Fire and our district is large but not so populated and middle class. The Fire Chiefs we have had always seem power and money hungry. the last stunt they pulled was to remove 80-90% of equipment out of service due to unsafe maintenance and supposedly no money to fix them. This went on for a few months all the while they were hounding people for money incl. getting the school children to raise money until it was discovered that almost all of the maintenance was VERY minor and they should have had no problem keeping it done.
caiti
Well-known member
So all that stuff about if it were a life or death situation, the mayor would have let the firefighters in was just BS??? That's just...lovely.
Chinmama
Well-known member
Whatever the actual version of this story really is (I think there have been a few details left out and a few added depending on the channel it's on or the person telling it. i.e. -mayor, homeowner, neighbor, fire department...), all I can say is WOW.
Lmbswimmer
Well-known member
I don't know all the details of this story, and I don't know if all the facts will ever be out there, but I can answer some questions - at least in regards to how this state works. TN could be vastly different.
Volunteer is kind of a misnomer - volunteer means that they are not paid a wage for shift work type stuff. I don't know of a true volunteer dept., everyone I know of pays something, usually about min wage to $10 an hour. This equates into a cost to the tax payer of about $15 an hour once you factor in insurance/tax etc... Most dept's pay for all training and calls.
On most fires many fire dept's charge per hour .1% of the valuation of the truck. So if a truck is worth $500,000 then you would pay $500 an hour for that truck to be there etc... Then you have other costs like foam, air tank refueling, sometimes the power company being called, law enforcement etc...
A 4 hours fire for wildland easily is $20,000. Structure could easily be more because the trucks are used more, and the actual gear on the fire fighters is being used.
In our state we have a LOT of volunteer fire fighters, however to even say that you are a volunteer fire fighter you need to complete 120 hours of training PER YEAR and that won't even allow you to enter a building.
There are a lot of rules regarding entry into a building so I won't go into that part because pets are not worth a fire fighters life.
Now, in this state fire services are set-up different, and it looks like this state needs to look at changing how they deal with fire services.
Many towns around here do not have fire depts so they contract out to another town - this fee is wrapped into the property tax and therefore everyone is covered.
In the unorganized territory we do have a fire tax, but if it is not paid it is treated like any other unpaid tax and the fire is still put out.
If a fire was set intentionally (in this case you could argue it was since it appears to have started from a barrell) the owner would then be summonsed for any number of things - in this state that could be Burning without a permit, burning prohibited materials, time and manner of kindling, etc.... but the fire would have been extinguised with the first call.
From the sounds of it, the contract is what is faulty. I see the logic of what they did, but they need to change it. I do also agree with the argument that it is like car insurance, you can't call after the accident to get it, or with health insurance, you can't wait to get sick to buy it. It's there in case something happens. However, it should not be set-up in that manner.
In our state we have also now gone to county wide mutual aid - which is a very nice feature. In towns where there is no fire dept. they still contract out with a neighboring town or towns to put out the fires, but if the fire gets too big they can then request outside that contract and that is "free" to the requesting agency. Depending on the cause of the fire restitution can still be granted in court.
In many small towns their fire depts are so small they have also created mutual aid agreements and share frequencies. So if house 1 burns in town A when the tone goes out the tone goes out to ALL the mutual aid towns at once, so A, B, C and D might start their response to the scene. Then if they get there and they can cancel C, and D they do, but at least they were already on route, or if they get there and they are like this is HUGE (example here is a gas station fire that caught the building and was threatening more) they can then do a second tone for E, F, and G from the county and they will start their response. In the case of the gas station fire it included help from 10 fire depts in 3 counties!
It is not unusual on our wildfires to have 8-10 fire depts show up either. Sometimes that might be 8-10 fire fighters or 80-100 fire fighters depending on the populations of the area!
I still don't understand in this case why the animals died since the homeowner and others state it took a long time for the fire to move from the barrel to the structure... the homeowner had plenty of time to retrieve the animals.
Volunteer is kind of a misnomer - volunteer means that they are not paid a wage for shift work type stuff. I don't know of a true volunteer dept., everyone I know of pays something, usually about min wage to $10 an hour. This equates into a cost to the tax payer of about $15 an hour once you factor in insurance/tax etc... Most dept's pay for all training and calls.
On most fires many fire dept's charge per hour .1% of the valuation of the truck. So if a truck is worth $500,000 then you would pay $500 an hour for that truck to be there etc... Then you have other costs like foam, air tank refueling, sometimes the power company being called, law enforcement etc...
A 4 hours fire for wildland easily is $20,000. Structure could easily be more because the trucks are used more, and the actual gear on the fire fighters is being used.
In our state we have a LOT of volunteer fire fighters, however to even say that you are a volunteer fire fighter you need to complete 120 hours of training PER YEAR and that won't even allow you to enter a building.
There are a lot of rules regarding entry into a building so I won't go into that part because pets are not worth a fire fighters life.
Now, in this state fire services are set-up different, and it looks like this state needs to look at changing how they deal with fire services.
Many towns around here do not have fire depts so they contract out to another town - this fee is wrapped into the property tax and therefore everyone is covered.
In the unorganized territory we do have a fire tax, but if it is not paid it is treated like any other unpaid tax and the fire is still put out.
If a fire was set intentionally (in this case you could argue it was since it appears to have started from a barrell) the owner would then be summonsed for any number of things - in this state that could be Burning without a permit, burning prohibited materials, time and manner of kindling, etc.... but the fire would have been extinguised with the first call.
From the sounds of it, the contract is what is faulty. I see the logic of what they did, but they need to change it. I do also agree with the argument that it is like car insurance, you can't call after the accident to get it, or with health insurance, you can't wait to get sick to buy it. It's there in case something happens. However, it should not be set-up in that manner.
In our state we have also now gone to county wide mutual aid - which is a very nice feature. In towns where there is no fire dept. they still contract out with a neighboring town or towns to put out the fires, but if the fire gets too big they can then request outside that contract and that is "free" to the requesting agency. Depending on the cause of the fire restitution can still be granted in court.
In many small towns their fire depts are so small they have also created mutual aid agreements and share frequencies. So if house 1 burns in town A when the tone goes out the tone goes out to ALL the mutual aid towns at once, so A, B, C and D might start their response to the scene. Then if they get there and they can cancel C, and D they do, but at least they were already on route, or if they get there and they are like this is HUGE (example here is a gas station fire that caught the building and was threatening more) they can then do a second tone for E, F, and G from the county and they will start their response. In the case of the gas station fire it included help from 10 fire depts in 3 counties!
It is not unusual on our wildfires to have 8-10 fire depts show up either. Sometimes that might be 8-10 fire fighters or 80-100 fire fighters depending on the populations of the area!
I still don't understand in this case why the animals died since the homeowner and others state it took a long time for the fire to move from the barrel to the structure... the homeowner had plenty of time to retrieve the animals.
Nancy
Hooked on Hogs
I too wonder why they did not get the animals out of the house at the first sign that the barrel fire was getting out of control.
~SG~
Orchestrating Chaos
I still think it odd the animals were not mentioned until way later. I wonder if the animals really died. If it was me that would have been my first complaint
They made the news here last night. It's terrible for them to let it burn down even if they said they will pay. The animals should have been taken out a long time ago before the fire spread.
Here in CA they are starting to charge if emergency vehicles come out. Our rental property the renter has to fill out a small application to let the city know who lives there. Also I think the fee is $145 yearly fee or $300.00 each time emergency comes out to the house. I always thought that property tax pay for it.
Here in CA they are starting to charge if emergency vehicles come out. Our rental property the renter has to fill out a small application to let the city know who lives there. Also I think the fee is $145 yearly fee or $300.00 each time emergency comes out to the house. I always thought that property tax pay for it.
3CsMommy
My babies Rock!
Even if they didn't realize the house had caught until the fire was already established, it seems like someone should have made an attempt to get the animals free.
I smell a rat in this whole situation.
I smell a rat in this whole situation.
Mt. Zion Chins
Barb
In NJ volunteer is just that - they receive NO pay. However, as in my town, some fire dept/emergency dept are both. Since it is hard to get people to volunteer during the day during the day hours they hire people, at night they have volunteers (no pay)
Melissa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,736
I know this is an animal forum and darn anyone who doesnt value an animals life but fact of the matter is, depending on the fire they CANNOT go in for an animal. If the structure is not secure they are not allowed to go in. Volunteer or not. Human life is not to be risked for animal life. Had it been a controlled fire and only one part of the house Im sure SOMEONE would have gone in. I think if the owners cared enough an attempt would have been made before the fire reached the house.
Melissa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,736
Mish he didnt forget. He just figured if he didnt pay it they would still put out the fire anyways. You dont "forget" to pay part of your taxes. Its all there on the same set of papers. He just figured he could save $75. Well this situation sure showed him.
knixnet
hbic
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31
It "showed" him? He lost his house and all his possessions! And maybe some animals although I've been reading conflicting articles.
If anything they could have tacked on a fee after wards for his failure to pay the tax.
It would be like if you got into an accident, and the EMTs and paramedics who show up refuse to remove your loved ones and your belongings from your collapsed, burning car, even though they are clearly dying and you are losing everything, because you don't have medical insurance so clearly, you deserve it.
~SG~
Orchestrating Chaos
I have my doubts any pets were involved, my response is based on thinking there were no animals as per the original article.
In this case we are not talking about people in danger, but only possessions,
and you are asking a human to fight and possibly die for things you can replace.
He took a gamble, he didn't pay the fee, he lost.
I agree that the town laws should not be that way,
I agree they should have made him sign a agreement to pay and then sent him a bill for what it cost to put out the fire which would have been far more then $75.
Sadly maybe this will be a awake up call for any who live in a area like this to fight for a change.
In this case we are not talking about people in danger, but only possessions,
and you are asking a human to fight and possibly die for things you can replace.
He took a gamble, he didn't pay the fee, he lost.
I agree that the town laws should not be that way,
I agree they should have made him sign a agreement to pay and then sent him a bill for what it cost to put out the fire which would have been far more then $75.
Sadly maybe this will be a awake up call for any who live in a area like this to fight for a change.
Annieo
Loving Pet Owner
It's a tragic, tragic story regardless. From additional reports that I read said there were 3 puppies lost that belonged to the grandkids. The report also said it was the kids who accidentally set the fire.
I think the Fire Chief had a point when he said, "It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"
I still could not watch someone's house burn. The whole story is sad.
I think the Fire Chief had a point when he said, "It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"
I still could not watch someone's house burn. The whole story is sad.
knixnet
hbic
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 31
The only problem I have with that statement is that a house and property on fire is just not comparable to a car in an accident. Everything that you own, where you sleep and spend every day! Not to mention that regardless if you have car insurance or not, the fire department would certainly put out a car on fire on the side of the road. :/
~SG~
Orchestrating Chaos
I don't know if they would in that town :wacko: sounds pretty messed up and I am so glad the laws are different here!!
and yes this is a very sad story
mishalaa
Irish Chinchilla
And, also, with the fire department RIGHT THERE while the fire is occurring - they have a chance of saving it. Car accidents, the police generally aren't already there watching them happen and able to step in.
