I'm getting a Pager?

[scfire86]

Preventing the fire will cut down on the workload, and without a staff capable of delivering programs in prevention, fires will not decrease and likely will increase. Yes, suppression needs to be staffed but NOT at the cost of gutting prevention.

Disagree. I can point to numerous instances where my suppression effort had results. You've yet to prove that Prevention has prevented one fire.

[FyredUp]

Was referring to other fire service personnel and my department members.

I really don't give a dam if I influence them, but it is one of my jobs to teach them.

How do you teach without influencing people? I will state further that I don't believe that is even possible.

[GTRider245]

Preventing the fire will cut down on the workload, and without a staff capable of delivering programs in prevention, fires will not decrease and likely will increase. Yes, suppression needs to be staffed but NOT at the cost of gutting prevention.

Pure BS. We all know there are fires that can not and will not be prevented. However you would rather we staff a division that may or may not have an effect rather than staff the division that absolutely will have an effect WHEN (not if) the fires happen.

As already mentioned, coloring books, training props and good intentions don't put out fires. Staffed, equipped and trained companies do.

[slackjawedyokel]

How do you teach without influencing people? I will state further that I don't believe that is even possible.

Saying you are teaching and actually teaching are two different things. A real teacher doesnt just give classes and presentations, he teaches by example, by SHARING his knowledge - some of the best teachers ,I have ever learned from would have whipped your @ss if you called him a teacher. But he was so full of knowledge (and not surface knowledge, but well rounded , Not just the whats , but the whys.) that you learned things without realizing it. Things that years later , helped you in a time of need. A real teacher is born --- not edumacated.

[tajm611]

So if you were sick and only had the money to choose between medicine that COULD prevent more illness or one that WOULD FIX your illness.... Ah nevermind, I forget how stupid you are.

[LaFireEducator]

So if you were sick and only had the money to choose between medicine that COULD prevent more illness or one that WOULD FIX your illness.... Ah nevermind, I forget how stupid you are.

I would rather prevent the illness.

And asked, i think most people would rather not have a fire than to have a staffed fire department show up and limit the damage, if possible. The fact is there is still damage.

If we had delivered the message before the fire and the fire never occurred, that would obviously be the best outcome.

Most rational people will listen to fire prevention messages if they are made relevant to their situation and delivered effectively. The fact that more than one poster has equated fire prevention to coloring books shows either 1) How limited their knowledge of what effective fire prevention is or 2) How limited their department's fire prevention and education program is.

You have your idea of the effectiveness of prevention. I have mine, based on both the effectiveness of prevention in one of my current and past situations, as well as the results in several other departments. And if that's the way you feel, cool.

[LaFireEducator]

Pure BS. We all know there are fires that can not and will not be prevented. However you would rather we staff a division that may or may not have an effect rather than staff the division that absolutely will have an effect WHEN (not if) the fires happen.

As already mentioned, coloring books, training props and good intentions don't put out fires. Staffed, equipped and trained companies do.

There are very few causes of fires that cannot be prevented.

Some messages are easier to design and deliver than others, but every message can be delivered and fires can be prevented either through education, engineering or enforcement.

It's just a question of how much effort the department wants to put into preventing the fires.

I don't think anyone is talking about gutting suppression to staff prevention, but there are those here that would like to gut prevention to staff prevention, even though in larger department it likely represents less than 1% of the force.

[LaFireEducator]

How do you teach without influencing people? I will state further that I don't believe that is even possible.

I don't go into class with the intention of influencing people. I go in there with the intention of delivering information and letting them make their own conclusions about what I have delivered.

[LaFireEducator]

Disagree. I can point to numerous instances where my suppression effort had results. You've yet to prove that Prevention has prevented one fire.

And again, I'll ask you ... How do you prove that prevention prevented a fire that never occurred.

I can point out situations where a family has been alerted to a fire by a smoke detector that wasn't there before the fire occurred, and they installed a detector because of a prevention presentation. I can tell you about people that put out a small fire with an extinguisher that wasn't there before they bought one because of a presentation.

But sorry, I can't tell you about a fire that never occurred because of prevention. I know they have .... but can't tell ya about one.

[FyredUp]

I don't go into class with the intention of influencing people. I go in there with the intention of delivering information and letting them make their own conclusions about what I have delivered.

That isn't teaching. It may be pontificating, but it sure isn't teaching. You may get away with that in a political science class but you sure as heck will not get away with that in a fire fighter class. There is no room for allowing to draw their own conclusions. You teach them a skill and that is that. You teach them fire science and that is that. There is no way to allow for drawing of their own conclusions.

[LaFireEducator]

That isn't teaching. It may be pontificating, but it sure isn't teaching. You may get away with that in a political science class but you sure as heck will not get away with that in a fire fighter class. There is no room for allowing to draw their own conclusions. You teach them a skill and that is that. You teach them fire science and that is that. There is no way to allow for drawing of their own conclusions.

Teaching them a skill is not, by my definition, influencing them as in most cases you are telling them one way to perform that skill.

To me influencing them is trying to change their behavior or thought pattern when tey already are performing a specific skill or tactical procedure - examples may be trying to get them to adopt a new technique such as using 2 1/2" lines for commercial fires instead of 1 3/4"'s, or trying to convince them to adopt 4" supply hose instead of 3".

When I talk about drawing thier own conclusions I am saying that I may be giving them alternatives, but trying not to influence if they choose the alternative to what they are currently doing. That would not be applicable if I was instructing them on set/standard procedures or techniques.

Teaching them skills is just that .. teaching them skills. I am referring to skills that they must learn to pass a course, such as FFI or our rookie check sheet. In those situations they do not have alternatives as they do not have an option as to how they can perform the skills - they must perform them in THIS way.

Even when I am teaching my RIT classes, as an example, I offer alternatives but I am very careful not to endorse any of the alternatives as better than the others, or the current department SOP.

[GTRider245]

I don't go into class with the intention of influencing people. I go in there with the intention of delivering information and letting them make their own conclusions about what I have delivered.

You are not a teacher. You are a slide reader.

[scfire86]

And again, I'll ask you ... How do you prove that prevention prevented a fire that never occurred.

Not my problem. It's up to you to prove it. Should be easy given your claims on the effectiveness of your programs.

I can point out situations where a family has been alerted to a fire by a smoke detector that wasn't there before the fire occurred, and they installed a detector because of a prevention presentation. I can tell you about people that put out a small fire with an extinguisher that wasn't there before they bought one because of a presentation.

Neither of which prevented a fire. They saved a life or helped put out a fire after it started.

But sorry, I can't tell you about a fire that never occurred because of prevention. I know they have .... but can't tell ya about one.

Thanks. A simple "NO" would have been adequate.

[LaFireEducator]

You are not a teacher. You are a slide reader.

Not at all.

There is a difference between providing information and trying to affect an attitude or behavior, which is what "influencing" is.

I provide much more information, as a rule, then is on the powerpoint, but it's not my intent when teaching a basic procedure or skills-oriented class to affect their attitudes about the topic. I am not there to lecture them as to why they should train more, or eat better. i am there in that situation to provide them with the technical information required for them to perform.

As I said, even when teaching self-developed courses, especially if I am teaching to another department, such as Rapid Intervention or reading Smoke, I give them plenty of alternatives as to how to perform a task, but it's not my job to influence their choices as to which one is best. That is up to the officers of that department to influence them which way they would prefer to see it done. up to the department

[LaFireEducator]

Disagree. I can point to numerous instances where my suppression effort had results. You've yet to prove that Prevention has prevented one fire.

And I am sure that I could point out many, many times where your suppression efforts, or any departments suppression efforts had no impact on the outcome. The occupants died. The home or building burned and it was bulldozed, or the business never reopened and never employed anyone again.

This is a discussion that will never have a end. Consistently declining fires, especially if the decline is significantly more than neighboring, similiar departments, do show the effectiveness of public education and fire prevention. You disagree.

I could ask the same of you. Show me where a 4-man company has saved more lives an property than 3-man companies. And I'm not talking about simulated fires that have demonstrated that they can perform more tasks or the same tasks quicker..... Where is some actual statistical data showing less fire loss and a greater number of life saves?

FDNY has been reducing staffing yet fewer civilians died in a fire in NYC this year than in any other year. Why? If you want to connect staffing to effectiveness, please explain that piece of data.

[scfire86]

And I am sure that I could point out many, many times where your suppression efforts, or any departments suppression efforts had no impact on the outcome. The occupants died. The home or building burned and it was bulldozed, or the business never reopened and never employed anyone again.

Not really. I can unequivocally state that my suppression efforts helped put the fire out every time. What the owners or occupants did with the structure wasn't my concern.

This is a discussion that will never have a end. Consistently declining fires, especially if the decline is significantly more than neighboring, similiar departments, do show the effectiveness of public education and fire prevention. You disagree.

For good reason. You've yet to prove your point on the value of prevention with anything empirical.

I could ask the same of you. Show me where a 4-man company has saved more lives an property than 3-man companies. And I'm not talking about simulated fires that have demonstrated that they can perform more tasks or the same tasks quicker..... Where is some actual statistical data showing less fire loss and a greater number of life saves?

There are studies that show the effectiveness of 3 vs 4 person companies.

FDNY has been reducing staffing yet fewer civilians died in a fire in NYC this year than in any other year. Why? If you want to connect staffing to effectiveness, please explain that piece of data.

We're not discussing FDNY or their staffing. We're discussing your claim that prevention has prevented fires.

[Dickey]

Since I have taken over public education/prevention, our structure fires have dropped every year except for one.

Of course, you fail to take into account my 20 years plus in other much busier departments (in terms of structure fires) and places,

Wow....did you break your arm from slapping yourself on the back for the wonderful job you have done?

Pretty arrogant but I'm sure that you, and you alone are the reason.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Bobby. you make this so easy...
www.lrc.fema.gov/downloads/coll_dallasfire.pdf
iaff3499.com/L93staff/Staffing%20Literature%203499.p df
www.lafayettefirefighters.com/staffing.htm
www.powellriverfirefighters.ca/1710qa4.pdf
web.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?...

[LaFireEducator]

Wow....did you break your arm from slapping yourself on the back for the wonderful job you have done?

Pretty arrogant but I'm sure that you, and you alone are the reason.

Never said that I alone was the reason.

However, before I did assume the responsibility for managing and expanding the program in both situations prevention programs were limited and uncoordinated, and generally only done at the request of the customer.

And in both situations the command staff has credited me for directing and developing coordinated programs that reached out to the community to develop an on-going yearly program.

That being said, yes, I am very good at my job.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Never said that I alone was the reason.

However, before I did assume the responsibility for managing and expanding the program in both situations prevention programs were limited and uncoordinated, and generally only done at the request of the customer.

And in both situations the command staff has credited me for directing and developing coordinated programs that reached out to the community to develop an on-going yearly program.

That being said, yes, I am very good at my job.

Truly a legend in your own mind....