# The poor volunteers...



## Ridryder911 (Apr 29, 2009)

Sorry, stolen from another site presented by one of posters. Don't know how we missed it? 

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=12030



> End of Volunteer Fire Departments? 4/27/09
> 
> CBS 7 News Staff
> April 27, 2009
> ...



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Well here we again, only this time not limited to EMS. 

R/r 911


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 29, 2009)

I need to see the bill to form a complete opinion.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 29, 2009)

Here's a link to the actual bill

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03390I.htm


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 29, 2009)

Sounds like a good bill. If I were in Tx I'd bug my reps to pass it through


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 29, 2009)

The bill doesn't seem to quantify the training required.
I wonder what would be included in these 350+ hours. Are they going to add more basic fire training, or are they going to throw in more hazmat, rescue, and EMS stuff?


----------



## JonTullos (Apr 29, 2009)

Why do some people get excited when something bad happens to the volunteers?  Seriously... I see so much volly bashing and I don't understand it.  There are a lot of towns and counties who simply can not afford to pay for a department.  If volunteer fire and medical responders aren't allowed to do their jobs, the only losers will be the citizens.  Say what you want, you're entitled to your opinions.  I've been around volunteer departments and personnel all my life and I've seen very few whackers (at least compared to what some would have you believe).  I'm a volunteer myself.  The guys and gals I work with are some of the best you could ask for.  More training is good, I'm all for it (I want to learn more myself!).  But, when the demands become more than can be met within reason then it becomes a really bad situation.

Disagree with me if you want, that's your right.  This is my two pennies.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 30, 2009)

I'm having a hard time reading the bill due to the formatting, and like Foxbat says, I can't see where they quantify the training.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 30, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> Why do some people get excited when something bad happens to the volunteers?


Bad?  What is bad about improved educational standards?  :unsure:


----------



## Aidey (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't think people think the improved education standards are bad, I think what is bad is the attitude that anything that makes the volunteers give up is good. 

If someone said "Increased education is good, but I hope people don't suffer because there is a mass exodus of volunteers" I don't think they would be accused of bashing volunteers.


----------



## reaper (Apr 30, 2009)

Aidey said:


> I don't think people think the improved education standards are bad, I think what is bad is the attitude that anything that makes the volunteers give up is good.
> 
> If someone said "Increased education is good, but I hope people don't suffer because there is a mass exodus of volunteers" I don't think they would be accused of bashing volunteers.



Well, with the increased education standards, there will be a mass exodus of volleys. Then they will be forced to have a paid dept, or have none, that is their choice! I will not feel bad for citizens, if they choose to have no service to cover them!


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 30, 2009)

Aidey said:


> If someone said "Increased education is good, but I hope people don't suffer because there is a mass exodus of volunteers" I don't think they would be accused of bashing volunteers.


So it's better that people suffer from poorly trained volunteers who may or may not even show up in the first place, then to suffer from them not being there?  I dunno... neither are attractive options to me.  If they go away, it won't be long at all before they are replaced.  No big deal.  Sometimes it takes going cold turkey to break a nasty habit.  I'm okay with that.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 30, 2009)

Getting career and volunteer staff to same level of training is not impossible. I heard of county-wide fire systems where all volunteer and career firefighters go through exactly the same courses at the same fire academy, only volunteers take it on weekends over longer periods of time.
Even in my county there are some small career or combination fire departments which do not have their own training centers and their members go through training with volunteers (and are often taught by instructors who are volunteers).
You can make the transition in a way that forces volunteers out, or you can make it in a way that will keep most of them. It all depens on what the intent is.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 30, 2009)

reaper said:


> Well, with the increased education standards, there will be a mass exodus of volleys. Then they will be forced to have a paid dept, or have none, that is their choice! I will not feel bad for citizens, if they choose to have no service to cover them!



I think you underestimate volunteers. Yes, some will leave because they don't like it, and some will leave because they will be unable to do the training because of their every day life. But those who truly want to stay with it will, and they will try as hard as they can. 

It takes time to put a tax structure in place and form a paid department. In some places inclusion in a fire service area must be a unanimous vote, so one stubborn neighbor could prevent a whole neighborhood from receiving fire protection 



AJ Hidell said:


> So it's better that people suffer from poorly trained volunteers who may or may not even show up in the first place, then to suffer from them not being there?  I dunno... neither are attractive options to me.  If they go away, it won't be long at all before they are replaced.  No big deal.  Sometimes it takes going cold turkey to break a nasty habit.  I'm okay with that.



There are some volunteers I trust more than paid FFs. The volunteers have no protection, they have to fight to keep their positions. The paid guys know the union is behind them, and thus they tend to aim lower than they may if they didn't have that protection. 



Foxbat said:


> Getting career and volunteer staff to same level of training is not impossible. I heard of county-wide fire systems where all volunteer and career firefighters go through exactly the same courses at the same fire academy, only volunteers take it on weekends over longer periods of time.
> Even in my county there are some small career or combination fire departments which do not have their own training centers and their members go through training with volunteers (and are often taught by instructors who are volunteers).
> You can make the transition in a way that forces volunteers out, or you can make it in a way that will keep most of them. It all depens on what the intent is.



I agree. One of the 1/2 volunteer 1/2 paid services in my area requires everyone to pass the same PAT that the big city department here requires. They also have pretty demanding training requirements. Yet, somehow, they have enough volunteers they aren't even taking applications right now.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 30, 2009)

Aidey said:


> The volunteers have no protection, they have to fight to keep their positions. The paid guys know the union is behind them, and thus they tend to aim lower than they may if they didn't have that protection.


That is exactly the problem.  Volunteers are so single-mindedly obsessed with maintaining their good 'ol boy hobby, and the perks it gives them, that they give no consideration to the best interests of the community.  It's a very selfish mentality insidiously masquerading as altruism.


----------



## daedalus (Apr 30, 2009)

After volunteers eventually get the boot, communities will have to decide for themselves is a paid, professional, educated EMS is right for them. Let the people decide.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Apr 30, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> Why do some people get excited when something bad happens to the volunteers?  Seriously... I see so much volly bashing and I don't understand it.  There are a lot of towns and counties who simply can not afford to pay for a department.  If volunteer fire and medical responders aren't allowed to do their jobs, the only losers will be the citizens.  Say what you want, you're entitled to your opinions.  I've been around volunteer departments and personnel all my life and I've seen very few whackers (at least compared to what some would have you believe).  I'm a volunteer myself.  The guys and gals I work with are some of the best you could ask for.  More training is good, I'm all for it (I want to learn more myself!).  But, when the demands become more than can be met within reason then it becomes a really bad situation.
> 
> Disagree with me if you want, that's your right.  This is my two pennies.



Yes, there are some communities that cannot afford professional and need volunteers and again I honor those areas, those are very remote and few. While you may not agree the town does not need a paid Paramedic in lieu of swimming pool for this summer or lights for the baseball field, etc.

My opinion against volunteers is that they want the role and function and respect of the professional .... only, if they can have it their own way. 

Sorry, that is not how life is. 

You want to play with the real ones, you need to be able to keep up with them.  Fire alike illnesses and injuries have no prejudice on whom or where it attacks. There are reasons my crews study hours a week after working 12 -15 calls a day. To maintain proficiency and be abreast of not what to do but to know the latest and be the best for their patient. 

The reason I posted, is this is the same attitudes we met when increasing the EMT program.. They want the honor but not the work. 

R/r 911


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 30, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> That is exactly the problem.  Volunteers are so single-mindedly obsessed with maintaining their good 'ol boy hobby, and the perks it gives them, that they give no consideration to the best interests of the community.  It's a very selfish mentality insidiously masquerading as altruism.



Wow, I dont even know a volunteer, fire or EMS.  "single mindedly maintaining their good ol boy hobby and the perks it gives them"  Is this truly the mentality of volunteers? I find this hard to believe, I wouldnt volunteer for anything never mind EMS and putting out a fire for free? Not a chance.

Keep in mind I know little about the fire service besides the fact that they assist us with patient care on scene, as far as putting out fires I have no idea whats involved. So I guess my opinion is basically baseless.  Anyway I will throw it out there.  

With that in mind how much education does it take to put out a fire?  The process hasent changed in a thousand years.


----------



## MtJerry (Apr 30, 2009)

> Yes, there are some communities that cannot afford professional and need volunteers and again I honor those areas, those are very remote and few. While you may not agree the town does not need a paid Paramedic in lieu of swimming pool for this summer or lights for the baseball field, etc.



You really need to get out and see some more of our country ... I don't mean any personal offense by this, but you are a _very_ well educated man who just made a very uneducated comment.

Come visit Montana, or Wyoming, or some of the other areas where the population of the entire state would barely occupy most larger cities.  It's just not possible to have paid fire and EMS in every township or county for that matter.  Volunteers are a valuable resource for our country.

If the bill in question provides the money to pay for such training (including pay for time off work) then it's a _great_ idea.  Unfortunately, as with most political decisions, it's likely a knee-jerk reaction to a lawsuit somewhere and there has been very little thought put into it.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 30, 2009)

Can we clarify?  Are "we" basing Volunteer Ambulance Folk or Volunteer EMSers or all Volunteers in Emergency Services or all Volunteers in avenues of service?

Because, while I can see a desire for paid professional EMSers nationwide (despite some logistic problems with that), volunteers have been the backbone of Fire and other organizations forever.  In my neck of the woods, if it wasn't for the volunteers to augment the paid, then the response of engines to fires would be cut in half, their wouldn't be enough staff to man the water tenders or breathing support or FF rehab, and their wouldn't be anyone to respond in lieu of the paid to a medical aid when the paid are already on a call.  I'm sure theat the volunteer ffs would love to get paid, but that is not why they do it, and I feel that a debt of gratitude is owned to them (especially those that I know that have spent 20-30 years doing it).  Likewise, 96%+ of all SAR in the U.S. is volunteer.  We (my team) have the authorization to maintain a team of 52 members.  For what we do we should be paid comparable to Paid Municiple Fire.  ($XX.XX times the hundreads of hours we put in each year in missions & training equals what?)  If we didn't volunteer we would need (as a county) to raise taxes by at least 5% to maintain the team.  We do not fit into that "good ol' boy" mentality and take our responsibility VERY seriously.  Hell, I spend more time training since I joined SAR 4 years ago then I ever did working paid Ambulance.  As I say, "There is nothing stronger than the Heart of a Volunteer."  I would rather spend 1 day volunteering on a mission than getting paid for 1 week on any other job.  If SAR would go paid, I would be thrilled as nothing makes me happier than when I am doing that.  So are we saying that all volunteering is bad in Emergency Services?  If so, I will tell that to the group that washes county emergency vehicles for free as part of their service to the community.  On the other hand, if we are talking *EMS Ambulance* specific, then we need to keep it confined to that and not bash the generic volunteer who includes, for me, Fire (MFR & EMT), SAR (MFR, EMT, Paramedic, and MD), and Boat Patrol (MFR & EMT).


----------



## MRE (Apr 30, 2009)

CAOX3 said:


> I wouldnt volunteer for anything never mind EMS and putting out a fire for free? Not a chance.



Luckily the members of the 75% of all fire depts in the country that are volunteer do not share that same view.  Not volunteering for anything?  Seems a little selfish.



CAOX3 said:


> With that in mind how much education does it take to put out a fire?  The process hasent changed in a thousand years.



Anybody can dump a bucket of water on a campfire, but to be a good firefighter I would put the required training on the same level as EMS.

I'm doing my Firefighter I/II course now, and its very much like the EMT-B.  Around 150 hours of training, written and practical exams at the end.  There are actually two practicals, one with live fire and one non-fire.

What most people don't realize (myself included until recently) is that firefighting is not simple at all.  If not done properly, many things at a fire can hurt or kill you.  For instance, enter a burning room and spray water in the wrong way and you can upset the thermal balance and cook yourself.  Medics do drug calculations, pump operators do pressure and flow calculations to supply their different lines and nozzles appropriately.


Back to the issue at hand, being a volunteer should never be used as an excuse not to conduct yourself professionally or be adaquately trained to do your job.  If the training requirements are made to be unreasonably difficult to meet, that is a different issue all together.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 30, 2009)

W1IM said:


> Back to the issue at hand, being a volunteer should never be used as an excuse not to conduct yourself professionally or be adaquately trained to do your job.  If the training requirements are made to be unreasonably difficult to meet, that is a different issue all together.



Why is it that we divide this up into these 2 catagories:

VOLUNTEER (sneer) vs. PROFESSIONAL

The catagories actually go like this:

PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEERS & PAID PROFESSIONALS vs. NON-PROFESSIONALS.  Just because you are a volunteer doesn't mean that you don't have the same dedication and commitment to the art/craft/field as those that are paid.  If peoples attacks are against the folks in emergency services that are not professional, than I say look aound and start singling out those that are Paid Un-Professionals in our field first.  They get paid for what they do and still don't take it seriously (I know many more of those in my neck of the woods thenthe rare volunteer un-professionals).  If it is a matter of raiseing the standards that volunteers must meet in order to be in the field, then fine, no argument that all (paid included) should have the standards raised to be taken seriously by the community and to provide above-adequate care to our patients and the community we serve; but a blacketed bash against volunteers only helps to divide an already divided field of emergency services.


----------



## daedalus (Apr 30, 2009)

W1IM said:


> Luckily the members of the 75% of all fire depts in the country that are volunteer do not share that same view.  Not volunteering for anything?  Seems a little selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could really save your state some money if you volunteer to do IFTs. BTW, I find it very easy to be a professional who demands pay for his work, and also a volunteer who uses his knowledge to help those who cannot get help. Once a week i volunteer my services at a county Free Clinic. I still expect pay for my work as an EMT, and soon, as a Paramedic.


----------



## Kookaburra (Apr 30, 2009)

Just chiming in as another person who lives in an area where there would be no fire protection if it weren't for volunteers. It's a very poor rural community - you could raise taxes 50% and it wouldn't make a difference in funding, because most don't make enough to pay taxes. We don't transport, but I'm going through the academy right now - I'm amazed at all of the stuff to remember! My college chemistry classes are certainly coming in handy!

However, I agree that volunteers should be just as professional as paid - in my own department, I'm always frustrated by the people who show up in greasy Carhartts and John Deere baseball caps to medical calls. If there was more training offered, especially on the professional fire fighter level, I would jump at it, and I know quite a few others who would too.


----------



## daedalus (Apr 30, 2009)

Kookaburra said:


> Just chiming in as another person who lives in an area where there would be no fire protection if it weren't for volunteers. It's a very poor rural community - you could raise taxes 50% and it wouldn't make a difference in funding, because most don't make enough to pay taxes. We don't transport, but I'm going through the academy right now - I'm amazed at all of the stuff to remember! My college chemistry classes are certainly coming in handy!
> 
> However, I agree that volunteers should be just as professional as paid - in my own department, I'm always frustrated by the people who show up in greasy Carhartts and John Deere baseball caps to medical calls. If there was more training offered, especially on the professional fire fighter level, I would jump at it, and I know quite a few others who would too.



Providing medical care is a tremendous responsibility. Doctors spend six years in full time school before they even touch a patient (4 years undergrad, 2 preclinical medical science years). They put in a incredible amount of work before they can even start patient care, and even than they are students who make very little decisions. How disrespectful to the profession of medicine to arrive to a call in a beat up 86 honda with a oversized lightbar zip tied to the roof, in shorts and a sweat stained t shirt.


----------



## Kookaburra (Apr 30, 2009)

Honestly, I'm not even sure why our department does medical calls- they only account for 60% of our call volume, and there are other services that cover the area medically.

Oh, and I should add - our ISO rating is equal to the nearby metro areas with professional fire departments. My dept. does Fire/Rescue great - I think it should concentrate on that.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Apr 30, 2009)

Kookaburra said:


> Just chiming in as another person who lives in an area where there would be no fire protection if it weren't for volunteers. It's a very poor rural community - you could raise taxes 50% and it wouldn't make a difference in funding, because most don't make enough to pay taxes.



Pretty much the same here where I am.



> However, I agree that volunteers should be just as professional as paid - in my own department, I'm always frustrated by the people who show up in greasy Carhartts and John Deere baseball caps to medical calls. If there was more training offered, especially on the professional fire fighter level, I would jump at it, and I know quite a few others who would too.



I agree. I always have my jump-suit in my rig, that way it dosen't matter what you are doing when a call comes in. Throw on the suit and go.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Apr 30, 2009)

Every time volunteer EMS takes a blow, I do a happy dance.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 30, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> Every time volunteer EMS takes a blow, I do a happy dance.



Before this uneducated comment with no argument to explain his attacks against all Professional Volunteers in EMS becomes the starting point for a "Vollies are the Devil" argument that sends this thread to the "closed basement" remember... (before you reply)...

"We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them." - Cato the Elder


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 30, 2009)

Kookaburra said:


> Just chiming in as another person who lives in an area where there would be no fire protection if it weren't for volunteers. It's a very poor rural community - you could raise taxes 50% and it wouldn't make a difference in funding, because most don't make enough to pay taxes. We don't transport, but I'm going through the academy right now - I'm amazed at all of the stuff to remember! My college chemistry classes are certainly coming in handy!
> 
> However, I agree that volunteers should be just as professional as paid - in my own department, I'm always frustrated by the people who show up in greasy Carhartts and John Deere baseball caps to medical calls. If there was more training offered, especially on the professional fire fighter level, I would jump at it, and I know quite a few others who would too.



I used to live in one of the poorest towns in NM (situated as the county seat of the largest county in the state) and they had a paid, professional fire dept. While I don't think EMS belongs with fire, they make it work. And it helps bash through the notion that poor communities need volunteer FD/EMS


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 30, 2009)

Kookaburra said:


> Honestly, I'm not even sure why our department does medical calls- they only account for 60% of our call volume, and there are other services that cover the area medically.
> 
> Oh, and I should add - our ISO rating is equal to the nearby metro areas with professional fire departments. My dept. does Fire/Rescue great - I think it should concentrate on that.



then please help convince your leadership to back out of EMS. Fire Depts have no place doing EMS


----------



## Aidey (Apr 30, 2009)

When I first started in the fire service it was explained to me that the several local FDs all held training on the same night. This made it easier to coordinate multi-department training. I was utterly floored when I found out that the city full time, all paid department didn't have training on that night though. I asked 'why do they have training on a different night?' only to become even more shocked when I found out they don't have regular training at all. 

Now that I've been around more full time FFs I've found that this seems to be the norm. In all the arguements I've heard about volly vs paid I've never been able to understand what it is about getting a paycheck that makes people think they don't need regular weekly (or even bi-weekly) training. Even now, I still don't understand why the "professionals" don't train more than the "non-professionals". 

Not really on topic, but it's an observation I have that I think is relevant to the convo.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Apr 30, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Before this uneducated comment with no argument to explain his attacks against all Professional Volunteers in EMS becomes the starting point for a "Vollies are the Devil" argument that sends this thread to the "closed basement" remember... (before you reply)...
> 
> "We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them." - Cato the Elder



EMS will never be a well-paying or "real" career as long as there are those who are willing to do it for free.  I'm tired of my chosen *PROFESSION* being viewed as a hobby or as an extension of the fire service instead of the legitimate division of healthcare it is and should be because of volunteers that can't guarantee QI or QA because there's no risk of them losing their job and their livelihood because of sub-par care... just their favorite hobby.  This means I have an evil tongue?


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 30, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> EMS will never be a well-paying or "real" career as long as there are those who are willing to do it for free.  I'm tired of my chosen *PROFESSION* being viewed as a hobby or as an extension of the fire service instead of the legitimate division of healthcare it is and should be because of volunteers that can't guarantee QI or QA because there's no risk of them losing their job and their livelihood because of sub-par care... just their favorite hobby.  This means I have an evil tongue?



Very well put.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 30, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> EMS will never be a well-paying or "real" career as long as there are those who are willing to do it for free.  I'm tired of my chosen *PROFESSION* being viewed as a hobby or as an extension of the fire service instead of the legitimate division of healthcare it is and should be because of volunteers that can't guarantee QI or QA because there's no risk of them losing their job and their livelihood because of sub-par care... just their favorite hobby.  This means I have an evil tongue?



If you take away all volunteer EMS, that includes that provided by Fire (75% nationwide), SAR (96% nationwide), and Ambulance (don't know how much), then most communities will be reciveing Ambulance care from Coroners (like the "good old days"), no first repsonders on medical aids, and absolutely no SAR response.  nd teh argument that the communities affected will make tough desisions to find the funds to keep emergency services paid is crap.  I have seen it first hand.  We have a smaller remote community in our county (pop 4,000-5,000) that used volunteer BLS, then ALS, ambulance for years until finally signing a contract to bring in a full-time paid ALS crew.  The cost of taxes to maintain that level of care raises property taxes by leaps and bounds every few years.  This last time they tried to raise the "Ambulance Tax" by 400%  It didn't pass, so the ambulance might be going bye bye here soon, makeing the closest ambulance 35-60 minutes away in the summer and twice as long in the snowing winter.

The reason I called your tounge evil was that you gave no argument for the blanketed "Vollies are bad" "happy dance" comment that was only meant to incite the anger of those that find a valid use for some volunteer.  And since I've got a "good life" all I will ask you to do is read my earlier posts on this subject that list my reasons for wanting to keep volunteer emergency workers in my community, not necissarily Ambulance, but other avenues of Emergency Medical Services that includes non-transport EMS and other Emergency Services that seem to be included in this argument by some.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Apr 30, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> If you take away all volunteer EMS, that includes that provided by Fire (75% nationwide), SAR (96% nationwide), and Ambulance (don't know how much), then most communities will be reciveing Ambulance care from Coroners (like the "good old days"), no first repsonders on medical aids, and absolutely no SAR response.



Why do so many people on this forum find a private not-for-profit paid ALS third service such a radical idea?



Mountain Res-Q said:


> nd teh argument that the communities affected will make tough desisions to find the funds to keep emergency services paid is crap.  I have seen it first hand.  We have a smaller remote community in our county (pop 4,000-5,000) that used volunteer BLS, then ALS, ambulance for years until finally signing a contract to bring in a full-time paid ALS crew.  The cost of taxes to maintain that level of care raises property taxes by leaps and bounds every few years.  This last time they tried to raise the "Ambulance Tax" by 400%  It didn't pass, so the ambulance might be going bye bye here soon, makeing the closest ambulance 35-60 minutes away in the summer and twice as long in the snowing winter



Then the people running the community are idiots who will change their tune when their wife or child or parent or husband strokes out or throws a clot and has an MI or has a diabetic emergency or rolls their car seven times or goes into cardiac arrest.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and if a few people have to die because of a stupid decision, then it's tragic, but if their deaths convince the people who run the community to sacrifice new turf for the high school football field to fund a paid 24/7 ALS third service, then so be it.  Or they could pay a neighboring service to staff their ambulance.  There are plenty of solutions aside from leaving the lives of the community in the hands of hobbyists.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Apr 30, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> Why do so many people on this forum find a private not-for-profit paid ALS third service such a radical idea?.



I don't.



EMTinNEPA said:


> Then the people running the community are idiots who will change their tune when their wife or child or parent or husband strokes out or throws a clot and has an MI or has a diabetic emergency or rolls their car seven times or goes into cardiac arrest.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and if a few people have to die because of a stupid decision, then it's tragic, but if their deaths convince the people who run the community to sacrifice new turf for the high school football field to fund a paid 24/7 ALS third service, then so be it.  Or they could pay a neighboring service to staff their ambulance.  There are plenty of solutions aside from leaving the lives of the community in the hands of hobbyists.



The community is full of idiots, yes... but poor idiots that are losing service after service because there is not money.  The Ambulance Service they use now is the NON-PROFIT THIRD SERVICE that services the the other 55,000 people in the county with 3 ALS ambulances.  3 for 55,000 and 1 for 5,000.  The only reason that is a consideration is that they are remote (especially in winter).  They have tried every option in the past and, yes continuing to pay for the current service is the best option from a medical standpoint, but it sucks when the "Ambulacne Tax" portion of your property tax goes from $125ish a year to over $500 a year with nothing new to show for it.  The solution was to raise taxes by 200% this year and deal with it latter... typical government thinking.  But again, I have no problem with having paid Ambulance nationwide (even with certain sacrafices) as I understand the arguements for this option, but consider this...

This is an exact quote from the OP’s article:

----------

One new piece of legislation could bring an end to many West Texas volunteer fire departments.

Dallas Area Representative Yvonne Davis put in 2 sections to House bill 3390 that would require the Texas Commission on Fire Protection to increase minimum educational and training standards for volunteer fire fighters.

Although it sounds good on the surface, it would require personnel to receive nearly 350 more hours of training and force departments to buy new equipment.

Many volunteers have full time jobs and may not be willing or able to commit the time and may not be able to be on staff anymore.

Howard County Volunteer Fire Chief Tommy Sullivan says it could bring death to some departments.

“It'll really be detrimental to the county, not only Howard County but all of them in West Texas that volunteer firefighters are their fire protection,” says Sullivan.

Sullivan is encouraging everyone to contact their local Legislative representative and ask them to re-examine the bill.

----------

Did anyone actually read this story or just see the word VOLUNTEER and started snearing?  NO WHERE does it mention EMS, MFR, EMT, Ambulance, etc…  There is nothing here to say that their new training would increase their EMS training or scope or that they even offer EMS transport.  Yet this thread is a bash Volunteer EMS Fest, why?  It seems to me that everyone on that bandwagon (including the normally wise R/r911) sees the word VOLUNTEER and begins to retch in disgust.  GROW UP!  This story had nothing to do with Volunteer Ambulance.  I have no first hand knowledge of this areas (West Texas) Emergency Response System, but it seems to me that we need to ask: If this piece of legislation passes then what happens to the areas that have nothing beyond volunteers to provide Fire Protection, Vehicle Extrication, Public Service Assists, Rope Rescues, and YES First Response for Paid Ambulance?  From a Paid Ambulance perspective: Good luck lifting that 400 lbs. patient with only yourself and your 120 lbs female partner (no attack on the fine women in our group).  How are you gonna run a code when you are 20 minutes out from the call and have to have your partner drive while you start an IV, intubate, defibrillate, do chest compressions, ventilate, push meds, and handle the med net?  GOOD LUCK!!!  But wait, we are celebrating the death of all volunteers, not just Ambulance volunteers, so (and most of these provide some level of EMS, just not ambulance)… good bye SAR, good bye rescue squads, good bye boat patrol (in my area at least), good bye the forest service wilderness patrol and volunteer ski patrol, good bye Community Patrollers, good bye American Red Cross, etc…  (Did we all forget the highly trained, specialist volunteers that responded to disasters like 9-11, Oklahoma City, Katrina, etc...)  Hell, we don’t need their willing and dedicated service any way… _you_ can take their job over and handle it all yourself or the government could just take 95% of your pay as taxes to fund these services… your choice.

You hate _*Volunteer Ambulance *_for whatever valid or selfish reasons, fine.  I agree to a point.  But to hate the volunteer service in general and rejoice in the lack of service the communities in the article will be left with… SHAME.  Attitudes like that are another reason EMSers don’t get respect for what we do…


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Apr 30, 2009)

I hate to say it but this is like................:deadhorse:

Maybe it is time we all stopped acting like children and stopped fighting and retaliating. Not just on this forum but as a whole, we need to realize that what works for one location may not work for another. While it may work for your community to have a paid full-time ALS ambulance service it is just not feasible in other areas. And just try to find people who are willing to be a full time paid paramedic for a service that gets 1500-2000 calls a year. And try to find people who want to pay the taxes to support that! Like I said _it may work for you but not in another area._ That is not to say that no one should not try, but some areas just cannot support it. So the next best thing is a volunteer BLS/ILS service. And like ResQ said the majority of FR and SAR is volly, and I would be willing to bet that the majority of ambulance is as well. What is wrong with that? Why is a volunteer looked down on so. They are in it because they want to be and only because they want to be. I know that some say that they aren't trained as well. #1 *They are required to meet the same standards as any paid person*. And #2, the training issue can be easily overcome by simple policies like my service has. *You stop showing up at training, you get cut.* Simple. Probably just like any paid service.

Tear the issue apart if you want, but lets not bicker about it anymore.


----------



## AJ Hidell (May 1, 2009)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> *They are required to meet the same standards as any paid person*.


You have completely missed the point.

It is because of volunteers whining -- which is the basis of this thread -- that the standards remain so low in the first place.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (May 1, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> You have completely missed the point.
> 
> It is because of volunteers whining -- which is the basis of this thread -- that the standards remain so low in the first place.



I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (May 1, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> You have completely missed the point.
> 
> It is *because of volunteers whining *-- which is the basis of this thread -- that the standards remain so low in the first place.



Once again, are we gonna make this a Volunteer Ambulance discussion (which I already said I agree with to a point) or are you gonna continue to include all volunteers in Emergency Services?  If it is the latter, then we have problems... by "we" I mean the citizens of America.  If my volunteer service is viewed as being so substandard then I will...

Hang up my Swiftwater Gear...  That means either no Swiftwater Rescue in the mountain counties or that the our counties FDs (with there 20 paid county FF's) will have to spend 100,000 grand annually to train, certify, equip and maintain enough paid full-time teams to cover the county.

Stop training and certifying in Search Management... I'm sure that the 2 deputies in my county trained in that can handle a search in our 1.2 million acres of national forest.

Stop training my dog in trailing...  After all none of those dog that went looking for our fallen brothers at 9/11 were volunteer... oh, wait THEY ALL WERE!  Hope my dog never finds out she is a lowly volunteer!

Stop training in High Angle Rope Rescue (VERTICAL)...  Wait, that means that no one paid in the county is now equiped, trained, certified, and ready to rescue tourist buses that go over the numerous cliffs in our area or retrive the body of the first female helo firefighter in CalFire History.

Stop leading my team in Medical Training so that we can stay current and ready to help that little girl suffering from hypothermia and near drowning or that climber who broke his leg on a climb.

Ya, my level of dedication and the standards to which I adhear are so low, that I should leave this all to the paid professionals... and then our county can declare chapter 11!

If you have a problem with Volunteer Ambulance, thats fine, I understand and 95% agree with the arguement.  But this thread is woven around a news story about Volunteer Firefighters and IS NOT about Volunteer Ambulance... so why do we feel the need to bash all volunteers, whose hearts are often in the right place and are doing what they can in an imperfect system.  You don't think that all volunteers would jump at the chance to quit their day job and be paid for there emergency service?  So even if you hate the Volunteer Ambulacnee SYSTEM why bash the Volunteers themself, they are just trying to provide the best care they can within the confines of a system that gives them less recognition than paid EMSers do... only they complain less.


----------



## AJ Hidell (May 1, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Once again, are we gonna make this a Volunteer Ambulance discussion (whihc I already said I agree with to a point) or are you gonna continue to include all volunteers in Emergency Services?


Are you in the wrong thread or something?  The thread is about volunteer firemen.  There is no reason that I should have to specify in each and every post that we are talking about volunteer firemen.  Not one person here -- other than you -- has said anything about volunteer SAR, or whatever it is that you're talking about, in this entire thread.  So how you imagine that anyone else is talking about that is beyond me.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (May 1, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> Are you in the wrong thread or something?  The thread is about volunteer firemen.  There is no reason that I should have to specify in each and every post that we are talking about volunteer firemen.  Not one person here -- other than you -- has said anything about volunteer SAR, or whatever it is that you're talking about, in this entire thread.  So how you imagine that anyone else is talking about that is beyond me.



Becasue the jump was already made from Volunteer Firefighters (Medical First Response, not paid ALS Ambulance) to Volunteer Ambulance.  TWO SEPERATE THINGS.  Instead of focusing hatred for Volunteer Ambulance on Volunteer Ambulance, everyone sees the word VOLUNTEER and automaticly starts bashing volunteers (no distinction was made between VOL. AMB. and VOL. FD or VOL. EMS).  EMS refers to the SYSTEM, not the specific way they provide it.  It was said (paraphrase), "Yah!  Volunteer EMS (NOT AMBULANCE) took a hit."  EMS refers to any way emergency medicine is provided (ambulance, hospital, fire, ski patrol, SAR, boat patrol, etc..).  you fail to limit your comments to volunteer ambulance, but bash all volunteers in all facets of EMS.  So if we are gonna hap-hazardly bash volunteers in the hopes that we hit Volunteer Ambulance, then I consider that an attack on the entire volunteer system.  Did you know that in many places Volunteer FD and Resque Squads perform many of the same duties I perform with SAR.  So why shouldn't I take offence when someone lumps me (a volunteer in EMS) in your "specific" hatred for VOL. Ambulance.


----------



## reaper (May 1, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Once again, are we gonna make this a Volunteer Ambulance discussion (which I already said I agree with to a point) or are you gonna continue to include all volunteers in Emergency Services?  If it is the latter, then we have problems... by "we" I mean the citizens of America.  If my volunteer service is viewed as being so substandard then I will...
> 
> Hang up my Swiftwater Gear...  That means either no Swiftwater Rescue in the mountain counties or that the our counties FDs (with there 20 paid county FF's) will have to spend 100,000 grand annually to train, certify, equip and maintain enough paid full-time teams to cover the county.
> 
> ...




Funny, that is all covered by our EMS system and not a volunteer among them! So yes, it can be done!


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (May 1, 2009)

reaper said:


> Funny, that is all covered by our EMS system and not a volunteer among them! So yes, it can be done!



You have a paid 50 man search team?  You Live in a National Park?

You have paid search and disaster dogs?  You would be one of like 3 nationwide.

You have a paid Wilderness Medical Team?  We are not talking Ski Patrol or a single Helo that can go anywhere, but a team comprised of EMT/OEC, WEMT, Paramedics, and ER MDs, that can get in by any means, to the most remote locations and spend days on end out there?  Cool.  Paid?  Sign me up.

You Swiftwater and Ropes Teams are paid.  That I believe as many times Fire takes these areas over.  But we are not as blessed to have that as an option.  It has been considered and is not possible from a logistical standpoint.

Your EMS System covers Swiftwater, Vertical Ropes, Wilderness Search (ATVs, Snowmobiles, Horses, Dogs, Skiiers, Snowshers, Helos, Hikers, Climbers, etc...)?  It must be nice to practice Emergency Services in a glass tower deep in the heart of Urbania, 90210.  My county is barely keeping the few current county employees paid, how do you propose they spend an extra 7-10 grand per person a year to provide these services, cause that is what figure I would be making if they paid me.  Then times that be a 50 man team, then add in teh 80 vollunteer fire guys that do their thing, then the community patrol folks, then he wilderness volunteers, then the volunteer ski patorlers, etc...  If Obama wants to give us a couple million a year in "bailout money" it get that done... cool... payment for us to remain as dedicated as we would even if we don't get paid.


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 1, 2009)

I was always told if youre doing this type of work (EMS/Fire) for the money you should find a new job, yeah its great if you can get paid but this is something I want to do whether I am getting paid or not.


----------



## reaper (May 1, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> You have a paid 50 man search team?  You Live in a National Park?
> 
> You have paid search and disaster dogs?  You would be one of like 3 nationwide.
> 
> ...



Yes, we have a National and state parks in our area( all Mountains) 

We have all the following.

Swift water team
Dive team
High/low angle team
Confined space team
SAR team
HSAR team (Helicopter)
K-9 SAR
Tac Medics

All members are fully paid for deployment and training. HSAR has it's own Helicopter for mountain insertions. Confined space team does cave rescues as well. K-9 team has 15 SAR dogs that are all deployable. SAR team has over 50 members and are ATV, Horseback or on the ground. Tac team is fully funded by a private retailer and all are fully swat trained and armed. This is all county run and paid for(expect tac team). We are not 90210, we are a mix of urban and extremely rural. We are not alone, the county next door has almost all the same teams and we can rely on each other, if needed.

It can be done by a county, if it wants to. Same way that EMS can be paid, if it wants to!


----------



## Ridryder911 (May 1, 2009)

I also know of a IHS EMS that provides the same service. So yes, it can be done in many forms. Again, I agree no one but one has read anymore into it than firefighting. 

R/r 911


----------



## VFFforpeople (May 1, 2009)

Just putting this out there for those who say, VFCs and other volunteers type things take money out of the system and forces people out of jobs. My county because the VFCs saved so much money last year on our fires is able to staff the Cal Fire engines 4o. They also were able to keep another paid station open, that was about to close. We run newer engines (1998-2002). Our equipment is some of the best around, some of it is better than paid gear. 90% of our company is paid fire or ems, it is cheap to get CEs and a VF. You also gain experiance and a place to train and drill your skills among peers. We are all trained to the levels of Cal Fire, and nor cal ems. Can't get around that. Our volunteers in our area were paid, from oakland FD,San Jose,SF. We have a vast amount of training and knowledge. I have learned alot from them, and many have gone to become training officers, pervention,helitack,medics for paid crews, but still come back to volunteer for the place they live. As said before you it doesnt work in all areas, my area is mostly agg. related or retirment community. All of you can say it can be done.You are right, if the community leaders are willing to take pay cuts,and re do the tax system. My city is number 9 in the nation for unemployment. So, feel free to tell me how you are going to pay a tax based system on that? I bet you can't.


----------



## reaper (May 1, 2009)

Sell off half of the shiny red trucks that aren't needed?


----------



## VFFforpeople (May 1, 2009)

reaper said:


> Sell off half of the shiny red trucks that aren't needed?



HAHAHA!! Sorry ready that, I just laughed.(a serious laugh, i mean that was funny) If we didn't have to deal with so many..well there is alot of wastful spending being done. My area has done well with its ratio thus far. We seem to get along very well, I agree with needing more paid, until my area balances its budget we only have what we have.


----------



## medic417 (May 1, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Professional Volunteers



Theres an oxymoron.  You can act professional as a volunteer but you can not be a professional.

As to OP any that fight improved education whether as paid or volly need to leave.  Fighting fire is actually a science its not just putting wet stuff on the hot stuff.  Yes I was a fire fighter but then I saw the light that I could not be the best when divided so I focused on EMS.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (May 1, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Theres an oxymoron.  You can act professional as a volunteer but you can not be a professional.
> 
> As to OP any that fight improved education whether as paid or volly need to leave.  Fighting fire is actually a science its not just putting wet stuff on the hot stuff.  Yes I was a fire fighter but then I saw the light that I could not be the best when divided so I focused on EMS.



Thanks, I'll keep that first pearl of wisdom in mind... 

The second part... no one is fihgting an increase in education.  I love learning and believe that second you stop learning in emergency services (especially in medicine) is the second you need to leave.  The issue is a blanketed hatred of volunteers by some people.  They are so blinded by a hatred of Volunteer AMBULANCE that this hatred transitions over to all all volunteers providing EMS to the community.  This hatred is so strong that they are they "do a happy dance" over the fact that the community mentioned in the OP may be left unprotected or with far less protection than before.  Those attitudes make me sad to be affiliated with those here that claim to be in the field (thankless, uinderpaid, and overworked) just because they care... HA...


----------



## JonTullos (May 1, 2009)

Ridryder911 said:


> Yes, there are some communities that cannot afford professional and need volunteers and again I honor those areas, those are very remote and few. While you may not agree the town does not need a paid Paramedic in lieu of swimming pool for this summer or lights for the baseball field, etc.
> 
> My opinion against volunteers is that they want the role and function and respect of the professional .... only, if they can have it their own way.
> 
> ...



Man, I have to agree with what someone else said:  You've every educated but that sure is an uneducated generalization.  I know a lot of paid idiots working in EMS.  Paid or unpaid has nothing to do with it; it's the heart of the person who's in the service.  I know many guys who went through EMT and even paramedic who did it simply to help their communities.  They don't get a dime for what they do and don't care if they ever do.  Some have other careers and don't want to leave them for whatever reason.  You're saying that a guy who went through the same classes as a paid guy, yet is unpaid, is somehow inferior?  I beg to differ.

I know of a lot of people in paid EMS who have no business being an orderly, let alone someone who holds someones life in their hands.  I'd gladly take a dedicated volunteer over one of those idiots any day.

Let me be clear:  I'm not against increased education.  I'm against the increased education being a burden on the county or community that may have to fold their department because the guys have other responsibilities and can't meet the requirements.  Again, the only losers will be the citizens.


----------



## VFFforpeople (May 1, 2009)

As what you quoted by Rid. He isnt bad mouthing or putting down volunteers. I agree with him, and I am a VFF, I think if I am going to step up and help my community I need to stay up to date with current EMS related items or training. My VFC does, we train on the newest protocalls or subjects that come out. If a VFF came up to me and said, ya I am here to help, but I can't train all the time or I can't make half the educational trainings. Then I will ask him how do you have time to help the people? and bid him farwell. Some VFCs complain about having to learn more than just renegade level. Some other VFCs or other VCs take the extra step to stay current. Understand if your VC is one that stays up to date and you know it, then you have nothing to be offended over. I just see these post, and keep it as motivation to keep training and pushing my education. Hope you found these rambles of words helpful.


----------



## JonTullos (May 2, 2009)

VFFforpeople said:


> As what you quoted by Rid. He isnt bad mouthing or putting down volunteers. I agree with him, and I am a VFF, I think if I am going to step up and help my community I need to stay up to date with current EMS related items or training. My VFC does, we train on the newest protocalls or subjects that come out. If a VFF came up to me and said, ya I am here to help, but I can't train all the time or I can't make half the educational trainings. Then I will ask him how do you have time to help the people? and bid him farwell. Some VFCs complain about having to learn more than just renegade level. Some other VFCs or other VCs take the extra step to stay current. Understand if your VC is one that stays up to date and you know it, then you have nothing to be offended over. I just see these post, and keep it as motivation to keep training and pushing my education. Hope you found these rambles of words helpful.



I guess I missed the point of his post (sorry Rid!).  I think education is mega important.  I'm in the midst of improving mine... I'm taking the Basic class this summer (well, as far as I know - but that's another story) and I'm planning to take paramedic afterward.  My problem is when the state starts mandating things and, while their intentions may be good, it can backfire and cause unintended consequences... like the death of a town or county's fire service due to burdensome requirements.  Education is important... I can't emphasize that enough!  I'm not saying that vollys shouldn't have requirements.  In my county FFs are "strongly encouraged" to take the state course ASAP and to at least become EMRs.  Not sure how many hours that amounts to though.  

My complaint is two fold:  States that mandate things that simply can't be met (and thus causing more harm) and people who start bashing volunteers simply because they're volunteers.  Maybe a lot of counties and towns can have fully paid or paid on call departments but a lot also can't.  Why bash for doing the best they can?


----------



## bmennig (May 2, 2009)

Well, I agree with many posts on this topic. Volunteers will eventually be obsolete, it's inevidible. In some areas it will drag on longer than others to become obsolete but like i said it will happen. I'm very proud to be volunteer, always have been. I'm a paid EMT as well. Between the 2 is a totally different world. With a paid crew that gets 10-15 calls a day, your up to par on your protocols as well as patient care. In a rurual EMS department, it's very very difficult to produce a good EMT. I promote my agency to work for the paid service to gain experience and bring it to the firehouse, which is what I did. There's no doubt that there are unprofessionals in both sides (volly and paid). Some medics just do it for a paycheck and nothing else. Seeing it from both sides, volunteers usually do get a bad rap. Especially EMS volunteers. Some people do highly respect us and some dont (more don't than do). In this day and age, people want $$$ to do what volunteers do. Nobody wants to give their time for it. Firehouse politics don't help either. Around here, most firehouses are "family" based which means a particular "family" runs the firehouse (example: the fire chief is john smith and his kids pete and bob are the executive officers of the dept). That makes people angry becuase with family, politics runs wild. It all ties together. People then look outside the firehouse to do what they love (fire or EMS) and do it as a career. Around here, a career in the fire service is hard to come by because 98% of our area is volunteer. Some people go to other departments that aren't so "family" based and run there. These departments are usually stronger and prevail more than others. That's my 2 cents on it.


----------



## reaper (May 2, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> I guess I missed the point of his post (sorry Rid!).  I think education is mega important.  I'm in the midst of improving mine... I'm taking the Basic class this summer (well, as far as I know - but that's another story) and I'm planning to take paramedic afterward.  My problem is when the state starts mandating things and, while their intentions may be good, it can backfire and cause unintended consequences... like the death of a town or county's fire service due to burdensome requirements.  Education is important... I can't emphasize that enough!  I'm not saying that vollys shouldn't have requirements.  In my county FFs are "strongly encouraged" to take the state course ASAP and to at least become EMRs.  Not sure how many hours that amounts to though.
> 
> My complaint is two fold:  States that mandate things that simply can't be met (and thus causing more harm) and people who start bashing volunteers simply because they're volunteers.  Maybe a lot of counties and towns can have fully paid or paid on call departments but a lot also can't.  Why bash for doing the best they can?




But that is the whole point of mandated training. It ensures that they are trained to higher levels and stay there. One example is the state of FL. About 5 years ago the state mandated that all volunteer FF's had to have FF1 to work. There was a lot of complaining and the old timers did not want to waste their time. I put on classes for some of the volunteer FD's in the area I lived in. We had three Depts that just didn't show up or never made it through the training. Guess what? The county shut down the Depts and disbanded the FD's. I spoke at the meetings on this shut down and pushed to disband the dept's. If they could not take the time to get the free training, then they had no business fighting fires. The community that they served threw a fit about it, screaming that they would not be protected. That never happened. The county and surrounding dept's picked up the slack and the communities never knew the difference. Some have paid depts now and have found out that they were saving money over what they spent on volunteers and have better services now.

So yes, State mandated training is a good thing and should be pushed through at all costs. It is the only way to make sure that all dept's are held to the same standards.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (May 2, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> My problem is when the state starts mandating things and, while their intentions may be good, it can backfire and cause unintended consequences... like the death of a town or county's fire service due to burdensome requirements.



Boy, I guess if that's the case, then they should do away with all those "burdensome" things like medical school, interships, residency, fellowships... after all, we wouldn't want to see the death of a town's hospital due to burdensome requirements.


----------



## medic417 (May 2, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Thanks, I'll keep that first pearl of wisdom in mind...  Your welcome.
> 
> The second part... no one is fihgting an increase in education.



Actually they are fighting against increased education, read the article.


----------



## ffemt8978 (May 2, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Actually they are fighting against increased education, read the article.



Are they fighting against increased education, or fighting an unfunded mandate increasing education?


----------



## medic417 (May 2, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Are they fighting against increased education, or fighting an unfunded mandate increasing education?



They are fighting the education.  What is sad is that there are several weekend schools held at area fire departments within easy drives that they could attend for free under current grants.  Attending just 2 of those a year plus a couple of evenings of in house education would be able to cover this proposed requirement.  Only new expense would be the gas to the classes.  I used to attend more than is being required by proposal every year and only had gas expense as grants paid the rest.


----------



## reaper (May 2, 2009)

Does it matter? The state has the right to mandate any training level they want and does not have to fund anything. It is up to the Depts to make sure their people meet the requirements!


----------



## JonTullos (May 2, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> Boy, I guess if that's the case, then they should do away with all those "burdensome" things like medical school, interships, residency, fellowships... after all, we wouldn't want to see the death of a town's hospital due to burdensome requirements.



That's not what I meant.  I didn't say it (I realize that now) but what I meant was the money issue.  Who's paying?  If the state's footing the bill then that's awesome.  If they expect the locals to do it... there will be a lot that can't.  Then what?  Some say "just disband the ones that can't and let the others pick up the slack."  What if the "others" are in the same position?  It's like No Child Left Behind:  The feds came in and said that schools have to do this idiocy in order to continue to receive federal funds.  Guess what:  NCLB was not funded in of itself.  The states were expected to do it themselves.  Now you have a cluster flub that was meant to do good but, in a lot of cases, is hurting more than it's helping.  

I don't think it's that the locals wouldn't want to pay to have their departments better trained but the reality is that many simply can't do it.  Then what?


----------



## TransportJockey (May 2, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> That's not what I meant.  I didn't say it (I realize that now) but what I meant was the money issue.  Who's paying?  If the state's footing the bill then that's awesome.  If they expect the locals to do it... there will be a lot that can't.  Then what?  Some say "just disband the ones that can't and let the others pick up the slack."  What if the "others" are in the same position?  It's like No Child Left Behind:  The feds came in and said that schools have to do this idiocy in order to continue to receive federal funds.  Guess what:  NCLB was not funded in of itself.  The states were expected to do it themselves.  Now you have a cluster flub that was meant to do good but, in a lot of cases, is hurting more than it's helping.
> 
> I don't think it's that the locals wouldn't want to pay to have their departments better trained but the reality is that many simply can't do it.  Then what?



As EMTs most of us are required to provide our own money for CE credits. I don't see a problem with requiring individuals to pay for their own education if a service can't cover the fees.


----------



## VFFforpeople (May 2, 2009)

Most vollies in my area have their CEs covered because we staff Medics that take the time to keep it updated, we also have retired we trained, training capts. We are lucky to have such a great resource like that. Other counties may not be as lucky. If your area can't afford it, maybe talk to other VFCs or the latter and see if maybe you can sit in with them on their trainings, or see if the paid you have will let you sit in. Other than that maybe see if Red crss has trainings or what not. There are so many options and grants and other things you can try, there is really no reason why a VFC or latter, can't be up to the standards of paid.


----------

