Well i'm don't about the situation in the US, but in europe the divorce rate with fireman are a lot higher than average...

A lot of young bucks got into the VFD because it gave them a way to get out of high school. Once they passed the initial training and application process they were issued a beeper. When it went off they would bow out of class and drive to the FD. They usually kept their bunker gear in their vehicle.

It was pretty well known that with a little sweet talk and casual bribery a guy in the VFD could get the dispatcher to beep them to get them out of tests they were unprepared for or particularly odious events. The school policy was that membership in the VFD was a community benefit and was to be accommodated. Employers were generally sympathetic to the need for regular training and occasionally trot off to an emergency.

The VFD was something of a civics club. They participated in all parades, were on hand at all major celebrations, and had annual fire safety awareness events at schools and the mall.

Once a guy got into the VFD the tendency was to stay involved for a very long time. Being part of the VFD can be addicting. After they got too old or otherwise involved many people would join the auxiliary or shift to supervisory rolls.

Why not join a department? Might be interesting for you.

Two jobs, two daughters, one wife, and no time.

However, I am joining the local CERT and will start those classes in September. At least I can do something.

-Blast

Not in our district. Pagers not even issued if you're in school. Also, you can't get a full Fire I cert unless you're 18 now - no live burn training, and no hydraulic tools for those under 18. Nevermid that these "kids" can kick my ass and are smarter than can be. They are "children".

We lost TWO barns on Monday morning, 11AM (first structure fire lit the second) because (among other things) there were only 2 adult firefighters around. We had 6 juniors, all off from school and in the area - none of them were allowed to respond because none of them were "old enough" to operate apparatus and the engine that rolled only has 2 seats. They drove to the firehouse, put on their bunker gear, and watched the smoke from the station.

in mine country, many firedepartments has a youth section, for children below 18 years of age. Volunteers would teach them the basics, have competitions and just let them play with firefighting equipment (they usually get the old stuff). They will not be exposed to real fire training or any of that. It's a way to bond people to the fireservice. Many youth member will become real fireman when they get older.

I know of one town, who will actually pay children in there youth department an actual (children)wage, so they would join the youth section more easy, instead of working in a supermarket or something. If they manage to get through the selection, they can even get a job guarantee when they turn 18. All that to hopefully bonding the to the fireservice, so they can join.

On on hand I support and believe in professional training, standards and firm, simple rules.

But rushing toward an all-professional and adult FD when the manpower, or finances aren't in place to support it leaves gaps that put property and even the most professional firefighters at risk.

In building trades most states used to maintain what they termed the 'ratio'. The ratio of licensed journeymen and either helpers or apprentices. Three to one was popular. Which means you could have three unlicensed people for every one licensed.

Perhaps firefighters could benefit from a similar system. Perhaps a one to one ratio. One adult and fully trained firefighter for each underage or not fully trained one. Limit the age to above 16, good grades and having passed a basic training and practical application course.

Just an idea.

Of course, on the other side, the general thought in firefighting seems to be that buildings and property are expendable. Rebuild with insurance. Lives are more important and firefighters are not encouraged to take risks. In part because the cost of even a minor injury, or worse a serious injury or death, pretty much sinks the FD, possibly even the county, budget.

OT: IMHO this might change if the nation had national health care. The US pays twice, sometimes three times, what most western nations pay for the same treatments. This ripples through the economy and nation. What we have isn't working.

Boy, reading this is eye-opening! To my mind, the last place to cut spending should be fire/EMS. Emergency Services are at the top of the list of what "government" should do.

"To my mind, the last place to cut spending should be fire/EMS. Emergency Services are at the top of the list of what "government" should do."

I have noticed over many years that when the state/county/city currently feels "monetary stress" and cut/reduce services, the services they cut are the most visible ones: fire, EMTs, police officers, libraries, parks, etc. This happens too frequently to be an accident. It seems to be a standard response, to "teach" the taxpayers a lesson. I find this especially offensive when it comes shortly after the bureaucrats have voted themselves raises.

You practically never heard them say, "We've got a shortfall of funds for the next year, so we're eliminating some non-essential jobs in management".

Sue

I'm curious, if the "kids" can't go and actually help fight fires, why do they have turnouts and why do they respond to the fire station?

By the way, I'm not condoning using children to fight fires, or as EMS providers either.

If a person isn't old enough to enter into a contract and can't be held legally liable for their actions, they have no business fighting fires, responding to EMS calls or driving emergency vehicles IMHO.

John E