LAFD Defends Dog Rescue

[ScareCrow57]

Saw this on the news last week and formed an opinion about it.

LAFD Defends Dog Rescue

Saving a German shepherd stuck in the rising Los Angeles River was the right thing to do, the risks were slight, rescue crews were on standby, extra taxpayer money wasn't used and the alternatives were unacceptable, authorities said Monday.

The helicopter and swift water rescue crew members that saved the dog on Friday have been hailed as heroes, feted on television and radio and congratulated on the Web and in print. But they have also been vilified by a few in blogs, on social networks and story comment sections.

"You're not going to please everybody. There's always 10 percent, they either don't like animals or think we are wasting taxpayer money," Capt. Steve Ruda said.

The dog, nicknamed Vernon after the city where he was rescued, remained in quarantine at the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority shelter in Downey, just south of Los Angeles.

Joe St. Georges, 50, the 25-year firefighting veteran who hoisted Vernon to safety, lost a fingernail and fractured a thumb when the dog bit him during the rescue. St. Georges just needs time to heal and he will be back at work, Ruda said. "He's anxious to get back to work to be with his crew."

The dog, which appears to be about 4 years old and weighs about 65 pounds, was eating everything given to him, sleeping well and showing no signs of rabies, said Capt. Aaron Reyes, director of operations for the SAACA shelter.

If no owner shows up, "we do have a mile-long list of people who want him," Reyes said.

On several Internet sites with comments about the rescue, the only people who left their names were those who supported the effort. There were a couple of open critics, but their identities were not easy to decipher.

Friday's rescue was televised nationally by the major cable channels.

About an eighth of a mile downstream from the rescue site, the water was much deeper and the current much faster, Reyes said.

The dog would have drifted on down and died. Do you just wait at the mouth of the river and wait for the carcass? Any way you slice it, that is unacceptable. They would not have been able to live that down," Reyes said. "They made a decision and we support that decision."

Firefighters on the ground said a crew could get the dog and the helicopter pilot, who had been standing by just 45 seconds away from the river, reported he could clear high tension lines in the area, Ruda said.

Swift water teams were on standby because of weeklong storms that had dumped as much as 8 inches of rain on some parts of Los Angeles County, Ruda said. Although as many as 50 firefighters were at the river, no firefighters were called in on overtime to take part in the rescue.

"All life is important," Ruda said. To prove his point, he pointed out that firefighters carry oxygen masks for cats and dogs that become victims of fire.

In addition, he said, 900 people die every year across the country in water accidents and one-third of them are rescuers. If St. Georges and his crew had failed to get the dog, "civilians, do-gooders and good Samaritans" would have been in the river, Ruda said.

The dog is thoroughly enjoying all the attention, Reyes said. "He's a big lover" and caters to women at the shelter.

Seemed to me a waste of a lot of resources, including a helicopter. I have two dogs, and they stay inside not out in some dog coup. So yes I am a dog lover, but there comes a time......

I'm curious to know what others think.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

We don't give a fat rat's rump what you think.

It was the LAFD's call, and doesn't affect you in any way , shape or form.

[CaptOldTimer]

Here he goes again, oral diarrhea when he knows nothing about this except what he reads and what he see on CNN.

Forming an opinion about a fire department making a rescue, be it people or canine, shows how narrow minded you are.

Maybe the police should have flew over and shot the dog. You would be bitching about that as well.

[nmfire]

The only expense this rescue incurred was a few gallons of Jet-A for the bird. That's it. Everyone had required and necessary PPE. Everyone had the necessary and required training. There were no doubt a handful if not more people in charge of making sure this didn't get stupid. And they're all trained in that river, which btw is just a big cement channel. It was not a suicidal radical dangerous unbelievable grab. A guy on a rope grabbed a dog. Its on the news because of human interest value of pets. I bet if it was a person, this wouldn't even have been on the news.

If you are soooooo appalled by them rescuing a dog from the water, move to Bossier Parish and stfu.

[DFDCar1]

I know of several FD's that do animal rescues, whether swift water, ice, or high angle. In all cases, they conduct a briefing to take some of the adrenaline out of the situation, and then take advantage of it as a training / exercise experience, a couple complete with AAR and Improvement Plan, so that they are better at it when they get called-out to rescue a human. Perfect practice makes perfect performance! I happened to see most of this rescue (on FOX, not CNN!) while at work. Nice job, LAFD!

[Acklan]

Seemed to me a waste of a lot of resources, including a helicopter. I have two dogs, and they stay inside not out in some dog coup. So yes I am a dog lover, but there comes a time......

Would this not be "Good public relations", that you say most of us lack? It was press you could not buy.

I'm curious to know what others think.

Curiosity, or boredom? Seems like the threads you have been posting to have slowed down. Hard to keep your count up when no one will play with you.

[MemphisE34a]

The only expense this rescue incurred was a few gallons of Jet-A for the bird.

And most likely not even that as had they not been flying there, they would have been flying somewhere else.

Good PR, good training.

[gunnyv]

I know of several FD's that do animal rescues, whether swift water, ice, or high angle. In all cases, they conduct a briefing to take some of the adrenaline out of the situation, and then take advantage of it as a training / exercise experience, a couple complete with AAR and Improvement Plan, so that they are better at it when they get called-out to rescue a human. Perfect practice makes perfect performance!

Ding, Ding!!!

[fieldseng2]

You know what would have happened if they didnt go pluck the mutt out of the drink?? You would have had all kinds of people b*tching about how heartless the LAFD is to let the dog drown.

The town were I was on the job previously had a lake right in the middle of town. It had a pretty walkway and all that around the downtown part. Many occasions we had to put on the gumby suits and get a dog out of the icey water.

One winter when it was really cold....someone called fire HQ about a duck stuck on the ice. This little lake was famous for its resident ducks and geese that lived year round near the dam downtown. The call taker (a Lt. on the job and a big time duck hunter) explained that ducks rarely..if ever get stuck on the ice, and the feathers acted as an insulation to prevent such things. He told the caller we wouldnt send anyone out there....explaining "What if there were a REAL emergency" where people needed our help and we had our resources tied up on something like that...

By our next shift the caller ended up calling the mayor, and there was a huge article in the paper about how thoughtless and inhumane the FD was because we wouldnt rescue a poor defensless duck. We ended up going out there.....the duck was indeed still in the same spot. We put the gumby suits on. You know what happened when we got ten feet from the duck? The s.o.b squaked at us and ran away from us to another spot!! He seemed really p*ssed that we made him get up and move! lol


my point is on something like that you are damned if you do...damned if you don't.

Im sure they evaluated the situation, and didn't rush right out there and fish the pup out. Are we not suppose to practice "Risk vs. Gain"? No doubt a senior officer made a sized up and made the final call.

[BryanLoader]

Hmmmm Try rescuing a yearling Moose that is not real impressed by your desire to get him out of the ice on the river while every damn news camera in town and beyond ison you.

[DFDCar1]

Hmmmm Try rescuing a yearling Moose that is not real impressed by your desire to get him out of the ice on the river while every damn news camera in town and beyond ison you.

Saw the same thing with a deer through the ice once. Wasn't pleasant, but the guys got a rope on it and dragged it to thicker ice. Fortunately, they were somehow able to get the rope off, and it made its way back into the woods. All the animal lovers were ecstatic. The deer hunters were just as happy, because that put more venison back in the woods for the next deer season!

[kd7fds]

Only time we have attempted the ice rescue of a wild animal was a deer a couple years ago.

It had two fractured legs when we got to it. The police put it down as soon as we got to shore.

[slackjawedyokel]

Dog coup? Sounds like a B horror movie.

[BKDRAFT]

I have to say the LAFD did a great job and would have done the same if confronted with a similar situation.

[nameless]

they second to last paragraph gives the best reason for doing it. Some civilian would probably try and rescue the dog and end up dead or in need of rescue. Better for everyone just to rescue the dog so no one else tries. Besides it is good practice/training for the rescue crews.

[nmfire]

I don't even look at it as training. It's not training if there is victim in danger. Its a rescue. If they were pulling a dummy with a life jacket out of the water, that would be training. As far as I'm concerned, that dog is a victim in need of rescue.

[len1582]

It was the right thing to do.

[pvfd27]

Damn Germans!

[FireMedic049]

I don't even look at it as training. It's not training if there is victim in danger. Its a rescue. If they were pulling a dummy with a life jacket out of the water, that would be training. As far as I'm concerned, that dog is a victim in need of rescue.

We could certainly argue the semantics of this particular situation regarding whether is was or could/should be considered "training", a "rescue" or whatever.

Regardless, it's pretty much a catch 22 situation for them. Some people consider animals to be equal to humans, value of life wise, in these situations, while other may see the animal as "expendable" and not worth the risk. As was already stated, what they did may have been the best option overall.

Not doing something would likely create a lot of negative PR for LAFD plus the possibility that untrained civilians might have attempted a rescue on their own and maybe made the situation worse. So, if an attempt were to be made, then wouldn't it be best if the "professionals" did it? Besides, it was the right thing to do.

Additionally, it's not like this type of "rescue" and in that type of location was unfamiliar to them. Maybe "training opportunity" isn't the best term to use since there was an actual live victim, but I don't really see a problem with utilizing the situation as a sort of "dress rehearsal". They need to "train" anyway for this, so why not take advantage of the opportunity for some "reality"?

After all, we frequently set real fires in real buildings and put personnel into "harms way" in the name of training, right? Is this really that different in terms of "risk" to ourselves or the "use" of resources?

[Just a new name]

Outstanding job by the LAFD.