FFPCogs

The latest from Stamford: http://blog.ctnews.com/stamford411/2014/02/07/turn-of-river-gets-2-9-million-federal-grant/

I guess this is one of those agree to disagree moments and that's ok. You know what though...the biggest shame of all is that we even have to have this discussion. As an aside I have to say I'm thankful my kids aren't doing at their age the things that I was at that age and I think the main reason for that is because both my wife and myself have been completely open and honest about where that road leads if they do. I've buried alot of friends and seen many of the rest go off to jail because of drugs along with fighting that demon myself for a very long time, so I have a pretty intimate knowledge of the whole drug issue. Ultimately all I can say is that I wouldn't wish addiction on anyone, but for me I have to say I'm glad I did what I did, saw what I saw and suffered what I suffered because of it, for without having traveled that road I would not be who I am today.

You are right in many ways and I fully respect your views, but as one who has been on both sides of the drug abuse fence I can tell unequivocally that the legal repercussions of drug use are an insignificant deterrent if they are one at all. Now I'm sure some will blow a head gasket with this next comment but when it comes right down to it drug addiction is no different than alcoholism other than alcohol is legal and drugs aren't. The root causes of both afflictions are the same. And when we look at the effectiveness of prohibition it's clear that making alcohol illegal created far more problems than it solved, that's why they repealed the 18th Amendment (alcohol is also a drug by the way). Today people still abuse and illicitly produce and distribute alcohol, but by far making alcohol legal again and giving those who want to drink access to it legally has been the best road to take. And in this day and age with the societal views on drug use, prescription or otherwise, as they are and the stigma far less ingrained as it used to be, so is it with drugs too. No one likes to admit defeat, but the war on drugs, just like the one against alcohol in the 1920's, is one that is unwinnable and no amount of ire, disgust or contempt about drugs and drug users is going to change that.

Yes and no. While securing the border would most likely cut some of the drug traffic across the border, it won't stop it, nothing defensive will. Even in places like Singapore and Saudi Arabia where drug possession and distribution means the death penalty there is still illegal drug use. In our case the money is just too enticing to think it would stop and truth be told there are alot of people whose livelihoods depend on the drug trade for a living..and I don't mean drug dealers, I mean DEA and State and local PDs as well. Please understand I mean no offense to law enforcement here, but by some accounts at least half of all crime is directly related to drug usage, so is it really in the best interests of those who fight that scourge and the crime it creates to see it gone completely? I think it's time to look at this realistically. Drugs have been here for centuries, they're here now and they are going to be here in the future and no matter how stringent the laws or how enlightened the education this is simply how it is. We have to grab this problem by the balls not the brains and hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. To pull the rug out from under the drug barons and their corrupt accomplices in law enforcement and politics the only real solution is legalization so that much of the profit and allure disappear. Do you think a junkie would buy street drugs if he could go to CVS and buy them legally for the same price or less? And by legalizing them they can be regulated in terms of purity and strength and taxed as well, plus most if not all law enforcement jobs would remain to ensure compliance to boot. And while even this would not eliminate illegal drugs completely, it would control them and their users far more effectively than the decades long "war on drugs" has done. And that's not an indictment of law enforcement either, they do the best they can under the circumstances when you realize that for every dollar spent to fight drugs at least two are spent to produce and smuggle them illegally and the drug lords still make billions...that's how much money we're talking about here.

I would say yes they do have that right, but in all fairness do they exercise it? Unless Westchester is very different from anywhere else the taxpayers have an opportunity to address any questions or grievances by attending their local Fire Commission meeting which by law must be open to the public. Do they attend them?

The sad truth is illicit drugs, including heroin which is probably the most enduring of them all, will always be available to those who want them. Education and scare tactics can help by reaching a few that are on the fence, but ultimately the deck is stacked against winning the "War on drugs". The demand is too great and the incentive to deal far too lucrative for it to be otherwise. And on the flip side addiction is a most heinous affliction, and it is an affliction, it's not about being weak or stupid or a criminal it's about being sick...no one wakes up one morning and says "gee whiz I want to be an addict, I think I'll go shoot some heroin". All we can do is put the information out there about the consequences of heroin use and reach the few we can before they start or help those who seek help in the form of rehab, AA, NA ect once they have.

I have no horse in this race, but I will offer up an observation on the point above. While this make total sense and Westchester does have a County government on which to build, one station serving multiple jurisdictions/towns does bring forth some questions: First off , who pays for it? And how? What local politicians/commissioners are going to want to share or give up authority? How do you go about ensuring equal tax payer representation/service delivery in such a multi-jurisdictional setting? And finally, Will a centralized firehouse actually improve response times and staffing or hurt them? It would seem, at least to an extent, that it will cause issues on both counts as it could mean a father distance to travel to an incident and a longer wait for members to reach the station to staff the rigs to get there.

Bad day. Thoughts and prayers to the family and friends left behind.

Never been a big E-One fan, but my attitude has changed somewhat due to the rig we use at work. We can't kill that bast#rd..no matter how hard we try . As for this Truck, well it's not a bad looking rig and it is a true Truck (no pump just as it should be) so those are benefits. Without actually working with one I'd say it would probably be a serviceable ladder for the money for alot of departments that need a truck but don't have alot of fire duty. Ultimately though it comes down to the needs vs wants and give and take. If you're in the market for a truck you should ask a few questions: what do you need it for? how much do you have to spend? and do you have the people to staff it? As for the rig itself, there's always trade offs when it comes to apparatus. In the minus column, it's a light duty aerial so there will be limitations with the aerial, but it's still useful for roof crews, as a water tower and for plucking a few victims. On the plus side, smaller size means accessibility and that's a pretty important one. What use is that shiny new dual axle 100ft aerial with a 1000lb tip load ladder/ tower/ quint /rescue /engine if you can't get into a scene. Bigger isn't always better and this rig would probably fill the Aerial void quite nicely for those who need it filled.

That's because we have a generation brought up to believe "everything is about ME". And this attitude is reinforced constantly in music, movies and TV ..perfect example, shows like Survivor, Big Brother ect who's core message is screw everyone else...lie, cheat, steal, backstab and otherwise do whatever you have to do to get "mines". Hard to have Brotherhood when "normal" thinking means thinking only of yourself and how you're going to get what you "deserve".

I agree with you in that every department should make firefighting their priority, but I don't think parades are why many of them don't, parades are but a symptom. When you come right down to it, any department that places attending parades over firefighting is suffering a far larger problem within their organization so whether or not they attend them won't make any difference on the fireground.

The problem is not parades, it's only with some who attend them.

Although limiting I don't think requiring proficiency in English is unreasonable as a prerequisite, just as it is for many jobs. Communication is a key element of fireground effectiveness and safety. Ultimately I think most prospects will have a good working knowledge of the language anyway since it would be just as frustrating for the student as it is the teacher for them to try to get by without it. .

Good article which will hopefully open doors throughout the volunteer fire service. VFDs are community based organizations which means recruitment efforts should reach out to ALL members of the community.

Agreed. This is nothing more than a waste of space. Sometimes making thing "easier" or "safer" makes them less useful too when put into practice.

Just as it was told to me...short and sweet Have big ears and a small mouth. As for the why, well you can't learn anything if your lips are flapping and as a new guy it's your job to learn

So I caught this on Yahoo and thought it was news worthy. I got nothing to say about it other than I hope they're mistaken. http://gma.yahoo.com/huge-9-11-fraud-case-accuses-retired-york-155625171--abc-news-topstories.html

Please!!! Gimme a break. I'm sure there are much more pressing issues in West Glen Falls and Queensbury to worry about. Congrats to the couple and kudos for the novel proposal idea...wish I thought of it.

Thanks Admin for the honor And thanks to the members here, all of whom have contributed to making me a better firefighter by sharing their insight, knowledge and opinions. I definitely got the best of that deal. Stay Safe, stay well and keep doing what you're doing...and thanks for doing it!!

To all from my family and I: HAPPY NEW YEAR!! As we say goodbye to 2013 let us take a moment to think about those working, those serving and those less fortunate. May 2014 bring you prosperity, happiness and the fulfillment of your goals. Stay safe, stay well and stay committed to being the best you can be. God Bless America and all of her firefighters.

Hit the nail right on the head Alex.

My family and I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. Whether you're working today or not may your day be peaceful and your life rich with the company of friends and family.

Caught this article and thought I'd post it here for our many NY contributors. http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-department-management/articles/1637335-NY-governor-vetoes-volunteer-firefighter-benefits-bills/

From the Ragvocate: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Judge-upholds-Stamford-fire-service-referendum-5084803.php

And now the latest:... Press Link: http://stamford.dailyvoice.com/polic...ire-department Statement from Mayor's Office: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Office of the Mayor December 20, 2013 CONTACT: Tom Dec 203-858-5430 tdec@stamfordct.gov City Releases Statements on Fire Service Court Decision STAMFORD, CT - Mayor David Martin released a statement following the news that the Superior Court upheld the constitutionality of the 2012 charter revision referendum. The referendum established a unified Fire Department in the City of Stamford, led by a Chief of the Stamford Fire Department with an Assistant Chief for Career Service Firefighters and an Assistant Chief for Volunteer Service Firefighters. “It is promising to learn that the court upheld the decision made by Stamford voters and reassuring to know that the Fire Service in the City of Stamford will be working together as one unified department to keep residents safe,” Martin stated. The court affirmed the important and continuing role of the volunteer fire departments under the terms of the revised charter for providing fire protection services within their districts. The Director of Public Safety, Health and Welfare Ted Jankowski stated, “The court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the charter provides the foundation for a unified fire service consisting of both volunteer and career personnel working together. This is a positive step forward and I am confident that a unified fire department will allow for more effective and efficient fire protection for the entire City of Stamford.” All parties attended the monthly Fire Commission meeting last night at which the Fire Commission reviewed and extended the Interim Consent Order. The Chiefs of the Long Ridge Fire Department, the Springdale Fire Department and the Turn of River Department, as well as the City Fire Chief and the Director of Public Safety were in attendance at the Fire Commission meeting. Fire Chief Peter Brown stated, “The court decision provides an opportunity to move forward in our effort to make a stronger and unified fire service. I am looking forward to working closely with the volunteer fire departments to provide the best possible fire protection for the City of Stamford and its residents.” The City and the three volunteer departments entered into an agreement which will automatically terminate on January 31, 2014 (unless extended by agreement of the parties) to continue operating under the Interim Consent Order agreed to March 28, 2013 and the Addendum to the Interim Consent Order agreed to December 19, 2013. The agreement will prevent any disruption in fire services and will allow the parties the opportunity to discuss a plan for moving forward.