Editor's note: Mr. MacInnis writes in response to the BayToday article "Substantial risk of serious injury to our firefighters” in saving dog says South River Fire Chief
-----
To the editor:
As a former first responder (GTA) with an accumulated service of over 70 years between my spouse and myself, I find that the South River Fire Chief considers himself a first responder embarrassing. Firstly, no one expects anyone to commit suicide but as anyone knows who has spent any time in this industry, rules are sometimes meant to be bent.
His claim that the caller was informed by dispatch that “regrettably, our fire department does not conduct animal rescues due to the substantial risk of serious injury to our firefighters.”
If this was the case, why did he show up in the first place? He claims that the reason he and another firefighter attended the scene was to assess and ensure the safety of the owners or any bystanders simply doesn’t make any sense.
Assess what? A possible response or for medical assessment?
Then why was not the appropriate equipment (rescue truck and equipment and additional personnel) sent to safely conduct any type of rescue instead of waiting for an additional time delay? If it was for a medical assessment, why was not EMS dispatched? As the fire service only has the limited capability of providing basic first aid, Paramedics should have been called to conduct a medical assessment, take vital signs, apply a cardiac monitor to identify any irregularities and subsequently treat appropriately.
Remember, these two elderly people both have a significant heart history. If his reason for attending was to ensure the safety of owners and bystanders, this is not the responsibility of a firefighter. This is solely the responsibility of the police as a firefighter has no legal authority to prevent such actions.
Was this merely to charge the township for a call for service and to allow the responding firefighter to collect a stipend?
He references in his excuse for not taking any action that perhaps the dog may bite or damage the suit is ludicrous. Once again anyone who has spent any time in this industry has been bitten by a dog at some point. In my opinion, a 10-year-old Golden Retriever is in no way considered a dangerous dog even in distress.
I also personally own an immersion suit which I use to set my docks in March and April as soon as the ice breaks up. Sometimes spending as much as 30 minutes in the frigid water. My suit does have a tear in it, and this in no way affects its flotation capabilities nor does the slight discomfort prevent me from doing the task at hand. It would be impossible for a dog to damage a suit enough to render it unsafe.
As far as the claim that all communications that the firefighters had with the owners were conducted in a professional and compassionate manner, I hope is true. I understand there are two sides to every coin but if even one comment is true from the original complainant’s letter this in no way was a professional response.
I find it ironic that the 4-foot-deep, treacherous fast-moving waters that he is claiming, allowed 2 civilians, who I’m assuming have no formal training, were able to safely and successfully retrieve the recovery of the submerged dog in the exact same location. By responding and merely standing around and not attempting even a feeble attempt of rescue he only made worse a tragic event.
My heartfelt condolences and sympathy go to the pet owners over the loss of their family member.
Gary MacInnis
Deer Lake, South River
