Los Angeles swiftwater canine rescue

[efdcapt115 1,511]

From the I.A. Beta/RescueKujo reporting:

Posted Today, 03:01 AM

Date: 01-22-10

Time: 11:15 AM PST

Location: Los Angeles River Indutrial Eastside

Departments: LAFD, LAPD

Description: On Friday, January 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, 7 Companies of Los Angeles Firefighters, 3 LAFD Rescue Ambulances, 1 Heavy Rescue, 2 Helicopters, 1 EMS Battalion Captain, 1 Battalion Chief Officer Command Team, 1 Division Chief Officer Command Team, 2 Swift Water Rescue Teams under the direction of Assistant Chief Terry Manning responded to a River Rescue at 385 Los Angeles River in the Industrial Eastside area.

When 9-1-1 callers reported a dog in distress within the Los Angeles River and the possibility of someone jumping into the waters to rescue it, sixty LAFD firefighters from across a broad expanse sprang quickly into action on the ground and in the air. Firefighter/Dispatchers queried callers to determine that this 3 year-old German shepherd mix was trapped in frigid fast-moving water and the LAFD wanted the rescue to take place from trained professionals rather than well intentioned individuals that can all-too-easily become victims.

Due to recent severe weather, local flood control channels remain swelled with storm-water, causing the Los Angeles Fire Department to remain in a "River Rescue" preparedness status. Members were strategically pre-deployed to a helipad at Piper Tech, where historically many rescues have taken place, providing a short distance to the LA River. At 1119 hours they were dispatched along with ground swift water rescuers to join the Vernon Fire Department in this recovery.

Due to the fast moving water and the steep embankment, the dog was unable to climb out. Once the canine moved from the side of channel to the center, swift water rescue teams were at a disadvantage to reach him, thus the decision was made by Commanders to deploy firefighters from a helicopter in a hoist operation.

Firefighter Joe St Georges was lowered into the rapids and quickly made his way to the dog and despite being continually bit, held on to the frightened pooch as they were lifted to safety.

Links: LAFD Blog

Writer: RescueKujo

I know somebody other than me who watched the video is thinking this, so I'm going to pose the question:

On Friday, January 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, 7 Companies of Los Angeles Firefighters, 3 LAFD Rescue Ambulances, 1 Heavy Rescue, 2 Helicopters, 1 EMS Battalion Captain, 1 Battalion Chief Officer Command Team, 1 Division Chief Officer Command Team, 2 Swift Water Rescue Teams under the direction of Assistant Chief Terry Manning

For a.....DOG in the water?

the possibility of someone jumping into the waters to rescue it, sixty LAFD firefighters

While I give full credit to the members' performance at this alarm, I must ask; where is the "risk/reward" assesment for this type of response and subsequent rescue? I can understand the concern about civilians attempting an amateur rescue attempt, and putting their lives and thefore LAFD/PD members potentially at risk.

But what about a sniper with a tranquilizer-dart gun and a net deployed a hundred or two yards down river? C'mon people, use your imagination here. What else could have been done?

The brother who actually made the grab got multiple puncture wounds and bites from the animal. That was the hardest part of the video to watch. I was wondering if he had some extra protective gear on to prevent the dog from biting him; aside from his regular rescue gear. Guess not.

*What if the dog is rabid?

*What would critics be saying if the helo had a tragic accident during the rescue attempt? Do you think the Chief and other Commanders would be receiving any criticism/lawsuits from grieving familes/getting roasted in the press, etc?

*Helo rescues as routine as they might be for a place like the Los Angeles basin, are still some of the riskiest operations undertaken by emergency services, are they not?

Risk ALL OF THIS.....for a dog?

Conclusion: IMHO, If I was making decisions at this incident (based on the limited information received in the post and on the video), I would never have put the helo rescue into operation. Nor would I have risked injury (which did occur) to any one of the firefighters. You know it can be heartbreaking to sit by and just watch as an animal struggles. Human emotion takes over; everyone wants to do something. BUT, somebody has to evaluate what the risk/reward is; and at the end of the day no firefighter's life is worth risking for an animal. As cold as that may sound, that's what "Incident Commanders" are paid to do; take the emotion out of the equation and make decisions in the best interest of those you serve and protect, YOUR TROOPS.

~Just an opinion, and once again give credit to all the brothers/sisters who performed their duties as ordered!

Edited January 23, 2010 by efdcapt115

[MoFire390 118]

i must say i would rather save an animal then have to save an person from going out to get the animal...thanks for sharing KUJO

[billwiegelman 1]

Totally assinine! 50+ firefighters for an hour and a helicopter. Whoever was in charge of this operation should be called in on the carpet and read the riot act. Total misuse of manpower and resources as well as putting people in danger for what? A freaking dog

Edited January 23, 2010 by billwiegelman

[MJP399 4]

Sure the number of personnel and equipment was large, but now look at the publicity and the positive light that the department is portrayed as. It may get a person to may make a donation or so to that department.

Good job

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Sure the number of personnel and equipment was large, but now look at the publicity and the positive light that the department is portrayed as. It may get a person to may make a donation or so to that department.

Good job

I agree with you; "good job" to those who performed their duties. However LAFD is taxpayer funded, it does not rely on donations to run operations.

[helicopper 1,050]

efdcapt, my initial reaction was the same as yours - all these resources and risk for a dog? But after considering the statement that they would rather rescue a dog on their terms and in the best possible conditions than return to the location to rescue a good samaritan under unknown conditions I backed off my position a bit.

We all know that someone would have gone in there to rescue the dog. Remember someone once jumped off the Tappan Zee Bridge to "rescue" a jumper. Then the FD would have been criticized for not taking action.

The bleeding hearts would also condemn the FD for their insensitivity to that "poor, poor drowning dog" (remember LA is almost as liberal as NY).

As for the use of a helicopter, as efd said, in the LA basin it is standard practice and they consider it just another resource. They don't sensationalize it as is done on this side of the country.

Why the large response of FF and equipment? It would seem that it is the standard swift water rescue response, many of those resources were already pre-deployed due to the "river rescue preparedness state". I think the west coast has a much more structured, much more organized response of appropriate resources than we do.

All in all, it was a good training exercise and I bet they're discussing how to safely extricate a dog in the future so a rescuer isn't bitten. Positive outcome. Good PR. Positive outcome. Dog is out of the water. Positive outcome.

I'm sure that the Chiefs in the LAFD do a risk/benefit analysis and they must have considered all the possible outcomes before deciding to rescue a canine. There is always a risk analysis when employing a helicopter - for any operation - and if we always said "What would critics be saying if the helo had a tragic accident during the rescue attempt", we'd never leave the airport. It is about managing the risk and all helicopter crews do that.

Think about all the funds that are going into special shelters that will accommodate pets in a disaster - why? Because some people place an extraordinary value on their pets and won't leave them behind. This is not that much different.

The cost for this entire operation was probably negligible as almost all the resources were on-duty so the cost is a minor issue.

Just another perspective.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

efdcapt, my initial reaction was the same as yours - all these resources and risk for a dog? But after considering the statement that they would rather rescue a dog on their terms and in the best possible conditions than return to the location to rescue a good samaritan under unknown conditions I backed off my position a bit.

We all know that someone would have gone in there to rescue the dog. Remember someone once jumped off the Tappan Zee Bridge to "rescue" a jumper. Then the FD would have been criticized for not taking action.

The bleeding hearts would also condemn the FD for their insensitivity to that "poor, poor drowning dog" (remember LA is almost as liberal as NY).

As for the use of a helicopter, as efd said, in the LA basin it is standard practice and they consider it just another resource. They don't sensationalize it as is done on this side of the country.

Why the large response of FF and equipment? It would seem that it is the standard swift water rescue response, many of those resources were already pre-deployed due to the "river rescue preparedness state". I think the west coast has a much more structured, much more organized response of appropriate resources than we do.

All in all, it was a good training exercise and I bet they're discussing how to safely extricate a dog in the future so a rescuer isn't bitten. Positive outcome. Good PR. Positive outcome. Dog is out of the water. Positive outcome.

I'm sure that the Chiefs in the LAFD do a risk/benefit analysis and they must have considered all the possible outcomes before deciding to rescue a canine. There is always a risk analysis when employing a helicopter - for any operation - and if we always said "What would critics be saying if the helo had a tragic accident during the rescue attempt", we'd never leave the airport. It is about managing the risk and all helicopter crews do that.

Think about all the funds that are going into special shelters that will accommodate pets in a disaster - why? Because some people place an extraordinary value on their pets and won't leave them behind. This is not that much different.

The cost for this entire operation was probably negligible as almost all the resources were on-duty so the cost is a minor issue.

Just another perspective.

Very interesting points Chris. Naturally most of us in this forum defer to you when it comes to helo issues, so your opinion is very important (IMHO lol). Let me ask you since you're also LE;

*What else could they have tried? Do I have a valid question about a tranquilizer gun, and subsequent grabbing of the now neutralized dog in the minutes that followed?

*How does LE assess whether or not an animal can/could be dangerous? In this case it sure looked like a big snarly Shepard, with large, nasty, pointy teeth! How could one know whether this was a ghetto guard dog trained to destroy, or Biffy and Buffy's (from the Hollywood Hills) lost and stranded loved one (unless the owner was on site)?

*If the R/B analysis was complete, why wasn't the rescuer provided with appropriate protective gear?

*Do "training exercises" take place during actual emergency deployment?

*God forbid, I hate to even bring it up; if there was a helo tragedy wouldn't the question become "what were they attempting to do?" If it was for a child in the river we all know that you or any other responder involved with this type of equipment were doing exactly what we thought you would'should be doing. But now the question becomes.......for a "what"?

*Agreed the $cost$ issue should never be considered in a R/B analysis.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Edited January 23, 2010 by efdcapt115

[billwiegelman 1]

Sure the number of personnel and equipment was large, but now look at the publicity and the positive light that the department is portrayed as. It may get a person to may make a donation or so to that department.

Good job

Certainly hope you never become an officer

Edited January 23, 2010 by billwiegelman

[MoFire390 118]

Certainly hope you never become an officer

bill, i understand what you mean about the misuse of man power... but, remember swift water rescues require many lines for operational use and saftey use...u need just mostly the same amount of man power for this type of rescue as you would an ice water rescue...in the video the reporter does say that the dog was in a hard place to get to.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

Totally assinine! 50+ firefighters for an hour and a helicopter. Whoever was in charge of this operation should be called in on the carpet and read the riot act. Total misuse of manpower and resources as well as putting people in danger for what? A freaking dog

OK, here's a question... these FF were all on duty and working, sitting around the firehouse right ? were other FF's call in ( back fill ) for these 50 + guys?

If no one was called in and no overtime had to be issued, there was really no cost involved. The helicopter ( knowing nothing about what they do everyday, or the hours a day they fly ) but its not like a indendant contractor was call in, so the cost was really nothing more then fuel, which should be absorbed with daily runs... I am only guessing here.

So there was no really extra cost to the City, if all above is true.... and yes, it can go down as a training exercise, what better real life training is that... do everything safely and double check all, no rushing around...granted it is not in totally controled conditions, but in the real world, nothing is...

Bottom line is this, taxpayers pay for the salaries and assume if help is needed, it will come, even if is for a dog... hell, I once spent $ 4 k for 2 days trying to save my 3 year old German Shephard who was sick. Pets become a family member, and the value of them is priceless to us, many would risk their own lives for...

My hats off the these guys for doing that, they are real stand up guys, and if I lived there, I would be very proud of my Fire Department !!

[MJP399 4]

Chris192 summed up more elaborately and better than what I did, but my thoughts were along those lines.

Why the large response of FF and equipment? It would seem that it is the standard swift water rescue response, many of those resources were already pre-deployed due to the "river rescue preparedness state". I think the west coast has a much more structured, much more organized response of appropriate resources than we do.

All in all, it was a good training exercise and I bet they're discussing how to safely extricate a dog in the future so a rescuer isn't bitten. Positive outcome. Good PR. Positive outcome. Dog is out of the water. Positive outcome

"

Certainly hope you never become an officer

Any advice you have I would love to hear. Thanks for the suggestion!

I personally wouldn't have deployed such resources, but who knows maybe that is their SOP's, secondly it was an officer's decision. My main thought is that it shows the kind, human side of fire fighters, instead of a picture of a hose through some saps car since he parked it in front of the hydrant, and than everyone will be complaining about the FD about how thoughtless they were.

Edited January 23, 2010 by MJP399

[efdcapt115 1,511]

My hats off the these guys for doing that, they are real stand up guys, and if I lived there, I would be very proud of my Fire Department !!

First thing is, can we cut the money issue out of the discussion? It was only raised because a member thought the department might get a donation due to their actions. They probably will, so that's great.

I think all of "our hats are off" to the brothers/sisters. I'm sure they're "stand up guys." Most firemen, cops, ems, are. They carry the mantle of honor forward in their continued excellence in operations, saving lives, and doing "the right thing." Chief Crocker said it best about there being no greater honor.

That isn't the question. It's about decision making, and priorities.

~Best to you.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Any advice you have I would love to hear. Thanks for the suggestion!

I'm not speaking for Bill. But I can tell you, having worked next to the man for many years, he brings considerable problem solving ability to the job. Many, many times he provided solutions to real issues, at real emergencies, in real time.

Aside from him being a nudge, there isn't a more thoughtful man you nor I could have been priviledged to work next to.

Whenever he spoke, I listened. Even when he was outwitting me, which was most of the time.

[MJP399 4]

No problem, no feelings hurt. I am sure Bill has a lot of advice and time in the service, which are appreciated. But my comment was made about the positive portrayal of this incident. I even stated that the number of personnel and equipment were high, many others also reelected that fact as well in their posts.

So by saying good job and you put an fd in a positive light, it gets a reply of "I hope you never become an officer."

So now when it comes time to shut down a fire station, the LAFD has something else to use, positive publicity, which is the only thing I had intentions of stating.

I remember when Yonkers were facing cuts, that department does an excellent job in their community, and I remember watching on News12 the numerous citizens of Yonkers, coming out in support of their fire department.

Edited January 23, 2010 by MJP399

[efdcapt115 1,511]

The incident happened far enough away I thought we could hash it around a bit, without "offending" any of the members of this site; that's why I brought it up after the I.A. Kujo is based in San diego as I know it, so even he is not directly there. And he always does an excellent job reporting in from the West Coast. Hopefully we'll get more from him about this too.

Thankfully as Chris pointed out here, the outcome was positive, except for the injuries to the firefighter.

Similar to what I did with NIOSH fatality reports, giving an incident a good critique can be a great learning method, especially if none of us are directly involved, so no hurt feelings in the discussion.

The only guy that can reasonably take humbrage with any comments here would be the IC from that job, who could come on here if he likes and give a full explaination of the events and circumstances leading up to this rescue mission..... (oh no here we go with that again!)

[JFLYNN 681]

The incident happened far enough away I thought we could hash it around a bit, without "offending" any of the members of this site; that's why I brought it up after the I.A. Kujo is based in San diego as I know it, so even he is not directly there. And he always does an excellent job reporting in from the West Coast. Hopefully we'll get more from him about this too.

Thankfully as Chris pointed out here, the outcome was positive, except for the injuries to the firefighter.

Similar to what I did with NIOSH fatality reports, giving an incident a good critique can be a great learning method, especially if none of us are directly involved, so no hurt feelings in the discussion.

The only guy that can reasonably take humbrage with any comments here would be the IC from that job, who could come on here if he likes and give a full explaination of the events and circumstances leading up to this rescue mission..... (oh no here we go with that again!)

This would be a tough call for an IC. We all, or most of us, love animals. Your people are chomping (no pun intended) at the bit to help the dog and use their training and equipment. If you pull it off, it is good PR. If you decide not to go for it, your own people as well as the public are probably all pretty pissed off at you. I will not Monday morning quarterback this incident because I wasn't there and I don't have all the details. However, if I were the IC at a similar incident, I would not place my members at any significant risk to save an animal.

Anyone who may at some point in their career be faced with a similar go or no go decision would be well advised to think now about what decision they might make, and to realize the pressure that will be put on you if you decide to stand by and do nothing. Sometimes, though, it takes the most courage to make the decision that you will do nothing. I'd rather stand by 1,000 times and watch animals die, than have to live with the fact that someone under my command was killed or suffered a serious injury attempting to save a non-human life.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

This would be a tough call for an IC. We all, or most of us, love animals. Your people are chomping (no pun intended) at the bit to help the dog and use their training and equipment. If you pull it off, it is good PR. If you decide not to go for it, your own people as well as the public are probably all pretty pissed off at you. I will not Monday morning quarterback this incident because I wasn't there and I don't have all the details. However, if I were the IC at a similar incident, I would not place my members at any significant risk to save an animal.

Anyone who may at some point in their career be faced with a similar go or no go decision would be well advised to think now about what decision they might make, and to realize the pressure that will be put on you if you decide to stand by and do nothing. Sometimes, though, it takes the most courage to make the decision that you will do nothing. I'd rather stand by 1,000 times and watch animals die, than have to live with the fact that someone under my command was killed or suffered a serious injury attempting to save a non-human life.

Well said Chief, and I agree 100%. As was said earlier, it is risk vs. benefit, and in my eyes, the amount of resources and risks put forth for this, was seeming excessive, and unnecessary...

[billwiegelman 1]

bill, i understand what you mean about the misuse of man power... but, remember swift water rescues require many lines for operational use and saftey use...u need just mostly the same amount of man power for this type of rescue as you would an ice water rescue...in the video the reporter does say that the dog was in a hard place to get to.

My point is it never should have been a "swift water rescue" It was a dog. What are you doing dropping a guy out of a helicopter into a rain swollen river, putting his life on the line for a dog. Then to boot, he gets injured by the dog

[Bnechis 3,961]

My point is it never should have been a "swift water rescue" It was a dog. What are you doing dropping a guy out of a helicopter into a rain swollen river, putting his life on the line for a dog. Then to boot, he gets injured by the dog

On another day would LA consider doing this to grab another firefighter or maniquin as part of a training evolution. I understand that they have and do that. So the question then is there more risk doing this rescue if they put there members into similar conditions as training.

Also the reason for so many responders is they set up half a dozen or more rescue sites for rescues in the LA River. The flow is so fast they only get about 2 seconds to make a grab before the victim is beyond them. The primary method they use is an inflated firehose anchored at one end and suspended atthe other end and middle, on the down stream side of a bridge. the second the victim grabs hold they release it and it swings shoreward on the anchored end (like a door) and members in swift water gear (PFD, Wetsuit, water helmet, swift water fins, teather)make the grab.

[helicopper 1,050]

My point is it never should have been a "swift water rescue" It was a dog. What are you doing dropping a guy out of a helicopter into a rain swollen river, putting his life on the line for a dog. Then to boot, he gets injured by the dog

I hope everyone remembers this sentiment when there's a body recovery assignment and people are running around as though it was a brother or sister to be rescued. Risk/benefit analysis.

Yes, it was a dog. Had this been training it would have been a mannequin. My point is that we very often go on "good intent" calls or other jobs where the risk may be higher than benefit but we do it anyway. Chief Flynn brings up some great points about making the hard decisions and I'm sure that the Chiefs in LA did the same thing before commencing the operation. We're not talking about a knee jerk decision with inadequate resources. We're talking about a FULL response with a swift water rescue assignment (alot of resources).

As for the dropping a guy out of a helicopter, A. he wasn't dropped. B. That's his job. and C. they do this stuff all the time. That was a rescue equipped Bell 412 twin engine helicopter with a crew that probably has more experience than any comparable crew anywhere in the country. They perform rescues and other missions all the time be it a rain swollen river or narrow canyon or ocean or rooftop. Anyone on that crew could have decided to say "no-go" but they did a risk analysis and this was well within their capabilities so they did it. If it was your call or your crew you could say no and maybe this incident will cause some more discussions about some of the more unusual rescue type calls we get here in our area. Another positive outcome.

Why do you go into burning vacant buildings? To save a building? You can't give me the argument that there COULD be someone in a vacant building because that's the same rationale that was used in this case. If the FD didn't get the dog, someone else would have and then they would have had a real rescue on their hands. So, why go into the building? Because that's the job, right?

As I said in my first post, they're probably discussing how to handle animal cases in the future so nobody does get bitten.

[helicopper 1,050]

Just out of curiosity, what would the "water rescue assignment" be here in our area - not necessarily for a known dog but for a water rescue.

[JFLYNN 681]

I hope everyone remembers this sentiment when there's a body recovery assignment and people are running around as though it was a brother or sister to be rescued. Risk/benefit analysis.

Yes, it was a dog. Had this been training it would have been a mannequin. My point is that we very often go on "good intent" calls or other jobs where the risk may be higher than benefit but we do it anyway. Chief Flynn brings up some great points about making the hard decisions and I'm sure that the Chiefs in LA did the same thing before commencing the operation. We're not talking about a knee jerk decision with inadequate resources. We're talking about a FULL response with a swift water rescue assignment (alot of resources).

As for the dropping a guy out of a helicopter, A. he wasn't dropped. B. That's his job. and C. they do this stuff all the time. That was a rescue equipped Bell 412 twin engine helicopter with a crew that probably has more experience than any comparable crew anywhere in the country. They perform rescues and other missions all the time be it a rain swollen river or narrow canyon or ocean or rooftop. Anyone one on that crew could have decided to say "no-go" but they did a risk analysis and this was well within their capabilities so they did it. If it was your call or your crew you could say no and maybe this incident will cause some more discussions about some of the more unusual rescue type calls we get here in our area. Another positive outcome.

Why do you go into burning vacant buildings? To save a building? You can't give me the argument that there COULD be someone in a vacant building because that's the same rationale that was used in this case. If the FD didn't get the dog, someone else would have and then they would have had a real rescue on their hands. So, why go into the building? Because that's the job, right?

As I said in my first post, they're probably discussing how to handle animal cases in the future so nobody does get bitten.

Chris, great post...it's funny, after I made my earlier post I was out to dinner and me, being the buff that I am, couldn't stop thinking about this whole discussion. I also thought about the vacant building analogy and I was thinking too that most of us on this forum really can't make a judgement at all about how much risk was actually involved in this incident as, obviously, most of us have no real training or experience is helicopter or swiftwater ops. Much like outside observers may feel that it doesn't make any sense for us to make agressive interior attacks at vacant building fires because they don't have the same training or experience levels as we do, maybe we would look at this swiftwater operation in LA and think that it was actually riskier than it really was because we are not looking at it through the eyes of people highly experienced in this area.

I was also thinking that maybe I was overly simplistic thinking in my first post. We actually do take calculated risks to save PROPERTY all the time, even when we know there is no life in danger. The old analogy, risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot, risk nothing to save nothing...So, maybe it would be rational to take a calculated risk to save an animal.

As to the vacant buiding analogy, an area where I do have some training and experience...we don't make interior attacks in vacant buildings just because there COULD be someone in the building. Oftentimes, we complete our primary search and we continue to conduct interior operations, sometimes aggressive interior operations. The reasons we would do this are several...many times, vacant buildings are exposing nearby occupied buildings and the best way to protect the exposures is to agressively extinguish the fire in the vacant. Or, the vacant may still have some value and we do take some risks to save property. Last, it is usually a lot quicker to push in and put the fire out then to stand around all night and "surround and drown", which ties up fire department resources causing longer response times to other incidents. Of course, if the volume of fire or the condition of the building dictates an exterior attack / defensive operation, that is what we do, regardless.

[JFLYNN 681]

Just out of curiosity, what would the "water rescue assignment" be here in our area - not necessarily for a known dog but for a water rescue.

That depends...and that's the problem...

[Remember585 815]

In all seriousness, is it me, or is the majority of this "moving water" just look like rotor wash? The Firefighter doesn't seem like he has much of a battle walking to the dog...

This is just my observation with my crappy eyesight, thanks.

[helicopper 1,050]

I was also thinking that maybe I was overly simplistic thinking in my first post. We actually do take calculated risks to save PROPERTY all the time, even when we know there is no life in danger. The old analogy, risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot, risk nothing to save nothing...So, maybe it would be rational to take a calculated risk to save an animal.

And I think you just hit the key point - it is a calculated risk. We, in our respective disciplines, can not elminate risk so we do all we can to manage it. We calculate the risk just as you so succinctly described it above and we risk a little or a lot depending on the situation.

[Guest WCDES636]

Just out of curiosity, what would the "water rescue assignment" be here in our area - not necessarily for a known dog but for a water rescue.

Chris.... Didn't the WCPD Air3 make a dog rescue from the reflecting pool IFO the Kensico Dam a few years ago?

[helicopper 1,050]

Chris.... Didn't the WCPD Air3 make a dog rescue from the reflecting pool IFO the Kensico Dam a few years ago?

Yes, yes they did. Probably about 8-10 years ago and that would not have been done today.

Different personnel, different administration, different, well different everything.

There have also been a couple of rescues of dogs stuck on ice flows on the Hudson during the past several years. None involved a helicopter but they did involve other emergency services.

[ckroll 101]

Only the rescuers on the call are in a position to judge the risk/benefits/value of the operation. They know their abilities, which from viewing the clip are remarkable. It looks like the ultimate training exercise. Pulling a mannequin is nothing like dealing with a terrified living creature. As we all know, when conditions are right for one emergency, they are right for many. Had there been a need for the resources that were at scene, say for a person in the water, one may assume those resources would have been redeployed to the higher value target---and response time would have been excellent.

Having been bitten or kicked a time or six on rescues, when handling wild/terrified animals it is almost a given that teeth or hooves will be an issue. Getting bitten is not that bad. It's why some of us have had rabies vaccinations and why there is prophylaxis for animal bites with unknown vaccination history.

Motorcycle tie down straps from wreckers work well for securing legs of large things that kick. Cargo netting, commercial or home made, especially out of rope that floats is light weight and works well for 'If you can't tie it, tangle it.' situations in conjunction with a handful of carabiners. A jacket/shirt flipped over a head with sleeves used to secure it buys time.

As for, 'it's only a dog'. A life is a life; where one draws the line on value is a personal decision. -- A society can be judged by how it treats its animals and its elderly--- [someone else said that]. If we start placing a value on a life before deciding what resources it gets.... well that might be a slippery slope.

Operations one is well trained for will be easy/safe and operations one has not trained for will be difficult/dangerous. My opinion is the rescue of the dog was a well orchestrated act of compassion that speaks volumes about those who did it and their dedication to training and preparedness. It should make us all proud.

[helicopper 1,050]

But what about a sniper with a tranquilizer-dart gun and a net deployed a hundred or two yards down river? C'mon people, use your imagination here. What else could have been done?

Sorry, capt, I completely overlooked this part of your questions and you had to remind me...

The only tranquilizer guns in law enforcement that I'm aware of are used to euthanize sick/injured/dangerous animals. They're not used to sedate; I believe it's the DEC or other like agencies that can actually tranquilize a bear (for example) and remove it from an area where it isn't welcome. The darts that we used to carry were exceptionally high doses of a substance that would very quickly drop an animal.

To properly sedate an animal you have to calculate the animal weight and med dose. Difficult to do under good circumstances. Perhaps it is an option but in all likelihood the animal would drown before being rescued. Once unconscious it won't be able to keep its head above water.

Interesting point, maybe someone with more animal experience can weigh in the idea.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Updater:

The Los Angeles Fire Department firefighter who rescued a panicked dog from the brown, rushing waters of the Los Angeles River this afternoon said that unless firefighters acted, someone else was likely to have ventured into the concrete wash and wound up a casualty.

Joe St. Georges, 50, the firefighter who captivated much of Los Angeles as he was lowered by a tether into the churning waters to rescue the hound, told reporters late Friday that he suffered a bite to his thumb but was otherwise OK.

“I didn’t have time to establish a rapport with the dog,” St. Georges said, in a classic understatement, as he held his heavily bandaged hand in the air. “He did what dogs do.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/los-angeles-firefighter-recounts-daring-dog-rescue.html

Apparently the "rescue" was shown live on both FOX and MSNBC. I stumbled upon this website while doing research this morning. The comments section from the general public reads very much like our thread here on BRAVO:

http://yesbuthowever.com/los-angeles-fire-department-saves-dog-la-river-8136480/ The following are quoted comments from that site:

Tony Williams · 1 day ago

I am was soo happy to see that fire fighter get in there and save that dog. I could only hope that they would risk human life for that dog. I wanted to help him, but there was nothing I could do from me living room, but watch. I loved the way the dog thought he was swimming in the air lol. We all should have a little more respect for the men and women that put them selves of the line every day for people and animals alike.

This one is a real interesting take on the state of affairs in LA. (this guy might have some "issues"):

suckit · 19 hours ago

Thank god they were out rescuing a dog. I hope they missed a few 911 calls-preferably from the true tax sucking scumbags who milk the system. It would thrill me to hear that a gang member bled to death while LAFD was out rescuing a dog. It only makes sense to take care of the superior being.....I say score one for the taxpayers yesterday! hahahahaha

Sometimes when a controversial topic is brought up on EMTBRAVO, some people on our board only see in posts what they want to see. I posted in support of everyone on the ground/in the air doing their duties, before concluding that the DECISION to perform the helo operation and the amount of resources deployed, the risk/benefit analysis, I disagreed with.

Since then I'm finding through research how the task-force system utilized in LAFD can be very effective in deploying vast resources rather quickly. Learning is fun!

The "I'm proud....blah blah" comments on our thread are redundant at this point.

Marc · 1 day ago

You are all a bunch of idiots. Everyone should re-evaluate their priorities. It was just a dog! 50 fire-fighters loads of equipment, to include a helicopter that uses alot of fuel. The money and resources used to save this dog could have been used in other ways or not at all. This is the same fire department that wanted people to evavcuate from areas in the hills surrounded Los angeles, because they did not want to put fire fighters "in harms way". Well, isn't that a load of crap. Their was no hero here. Top officials made a decision to put the life of a fire fighter in danger to save a wayward dog. If you want to make a monetary donation to something worth while and help save lives (human ones), give to a homeless shelter or feed the hungry. Everyone, including the LAFD should pull their heads out of thier asses and think about what is truely important.

Back to BRAVO:

It's really great to see the humanity of those who posted in support of the actions taken at this alarm, even though I disagree with you about the way this problem was solved. Thank you Chris for acknowledging my question about sedating an animal; I hope someone steps forward here who has further knowledge on the animal sedation subject and adds to what you have informed us of.

I have to say though, that I am surprised at SOME of you who would equate this response and subsequent control of the alarm, to a "training exercise." I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say that NO department would ever conduct a training exercise with a chopper in the immediate vicinity of high-voltage wires, nor would they lower the rescuer and the training victim onto a roadway that moments earlier had free flowing traffic on it.

This was by no means a controlled environment, and please correct me if I'm wrong; training exercises are conducted in CONTROLLED environments. So please to whomever, you want to support the canine rescue that's your opinion and right, but do not compare what happened during this incident to training.

I have no experience operating choppers, being lowered out of one for a rescue, flying in darkness with night vision goggles, etc. But I have helped a few of them land at emergency scenes in my day. A few years ago on the Bronx River Parkway, we had a BMW that flipped over at a high rate of speed, pancaked the passenger compartment, and the driver suffered a fractured spine as a result.

While we were cutting the roof off, the Medic decided he wanted a medivac chopper on scene, so we called for them. When the chopper arrived, an engine had been assigned, they had cones set up on the far end of the grassy area we were operating on, furthest away from the wreckage. Yet that did not prevent the chopper from nearly landing on top of the vehicle, and while doing so much of our emergency equipment was literally blown away. Yes, your oxygen bag will roll down the roadway very quickly if you happen to find yourself in a "prop wash." I remember looking up and saying to myself "so...this is how Vic Morrow felt in his last breathing moment!" Thankfully, the pilot's "situational awareness" saved us all.

Since that event, I have never looked at chopper related incidents as "routine", and in my opinion there is an inherant danger at all times during helicopter operations.

I have a close friend who suffered a major tib-fib compound fracture while in the NAVY. A chopper that was delivering mail was tethered to the ship with a steel cable. They used to slide the mail bags down the cable to the ship. Something mechanical happened, the chopper crashed into the ship, the sailor standing next to my bud was killed, as were the helicopter crew.

Maybe some of you who think deploying a chopper should be an easy decision to make, will have to wait for some kind of incident with one to see things a bit differently. Try googling "Rescue helicopter crashes" for a start.

FYI: This is a Los Angeles law firm that specializes in suing helicopter agencies with regard to personal injury or death:

http://www.airplanecrash-lawyer.com/PracticeAreas/Air-ambulance-accidents.asp

Lastly, I happen to love dogs and most other animals. My pet is a Senegal Parrot, he's getting to be fifteen now, soon he'll be chirping for his drivers licence.

If you would like to follow up on your good will toward animals, I strongly suggest you consider making a donation to help support those most in need:

http://www.aspca.org/donate/