Should L.A. firefighters have risked their lives to save a dog? Tell us what you think [Updated]
The rescue of a dog by an army of firefighters and swift-rescue personnel has been the talk of Los Angeles. It was broadcast live on local TV and has sparked much debate.
Should fire personnel have risked their lives to save the dog?
LAFD Capt. Steve Ruda said the firefighter, Joe St. Georges, who rescued the dog has significant bite injuries to his right hand and forearm, and is being treated in the emergency room at L.A. County-USC Medical Center.
“They are waiting for a hand specialist to come in because of the significance of the injuries,” Ruda said. The dog will be tested for rabies, and is being cared for at the county's Animal Care shelter in Downey, he said.
[Updated at 6 p.m.: St. Georges, wearing a bandage on his hand, was released from the hospital and spoke to the media.
"The dog was trying to get out of the channel, and that was not going to happen," he said, explaining why officials decided to act.
He said the dog "started snapping at me" when he tried to put a capture restraint on the canine. He said he got one bite to the thumb.
St. Georges was asked why he decided to risk his life. He said officials worried that someone without training would attempt to rescue the dog because the scene was being broadcast on TV.]
Share your views below.
--Seema Mehta and Shelby Grad








This dog had to be rescued...it did not ignore warnings like most people who
end up getting rescued...whether in closed fire-damaged forest slopes (
last week a hiker called on his cell phone to be air lifted out), or in expensive
homes who arrogantly risk other lives so they can stay in their endangered homes. (La Canada resident refuse to evacuate during flash flood warnings)
Posted by: Pita | January 22, 2010 at 05:50 PM
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by: August | January 22, 2010 at 05:51 PM
Human life is worth MORE than any animal's life...no matter WHAT the tree-huggers, nature-worshippers and animal-rights extremists might say!!
To elevate animals above humans is cartoonishly laughable...
Posted by: Verballistic | January 22, 2010 at 05:52 PM
Well, at least they're risking their lives trying to save a living creature, unlike the North Koreans who supposedly died saving pictures of the Dear Leader and the Great Leader.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-north-korea-heroes23-2010jan23,0,5324539.story
Posted by: kushibo | January 22, 2010 at 05:53 PM
What ever happen to tnat saying? A man best friend is there DOG! Why would anyone question that on the LA fire department for doing there job. They are true HEROES! It makes you wonder what has this world come to and are freedom of speech are 10 amendments. I for ones I'm glad Joe St. George rescue the dog. I will want the same for my dogs to be rescue.
Posted by: Amarely Monroy | January 22, 2010 at 05:56 PM
Response to "Carly":
Your emotion-charged rant about how putting human life above that of animals is "speciesism" leads me to one question:
Do you support the murderous hypocrites who SPIKE TREES to "save the tree" at the risk of killing the lumberjacks employed to cut it down?
If so, I hear ELF (Earth Liberation Front) is launching a new membership drive...LOL!!
Posted by: Verballistic | January 22, 2010 at 06:02 PM
Yes...the rescue of the dog was very appropriate...it is these acts which define us and our humanity. We rescue people..why not animals who would and have given their lives for us.
Posted by: Dominic | January 22, 2010 at 06:02 PM
Absolutely. Anyone who would have stood by and watched that dog die is less than human. Joe St. Georges is my hero as are the others who were there assisting him. As for the person asking if the cost was worth it. I will comfort myself the next time I look at my paycheck and fool myself into thinking that tax money helped pay for that dog, and not some $500 a plate luncheon for a fatcat politician. And for the one who said the public cares for animals more than the homeless..in some instances I suppose that's true. That dog bit the firefighter out of pure terror, humans will do it just for fun. Which would you rather deal with? I'll take the dog any day.
Posted by: k.g | January 22, 2010 at 06:04 PM
Save an animal? Yes. Risking a human life for that? Nuno.
Posted by: Stan | January 22, 2010 at 06:04 PM
"I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man." M. Gandhi
Posted by: S. B. | January 22, 2010 at 06:09 PM
"You can judge a society by the way it treats its animals" - Gandhi
Posted by: kazzypop | January 22, 2010 at 06:13 PM
Absolutely 100% Bravo for the City Services effort. Well done "Saint George"! Mr Fireman, you are heroic, for going onto the line and holding on to that terrified dog despite his frightened bites. You lifted my day.
Posted by: BlossomEndRot | January 22, 2010 at 06:13 PM
I doubt that firefighter St. Georges was ordered to do it, he probably volunteered. What a courageous man to capture, bear-hug and fly with a big dog like that. My hat is off to him especially for continuing the rescue after being bitten!
Maybe in the future capture nets or something similar could be made available so the rescuers can minimize the risk of being harmed by frightened animals.
Posted by: DogFather | January 22, 2010 at 06:14 PM
Waste of money, and needless endangerment of first responders.
While I love dogs, imagine if something even worse happened like a copter crash or something.
Posted by: James | January 22, 2010 at 06:25 PM
Yes it was worth it to save this dog. Plus they get to practice for humans this way. The dog was scared and cold --- it's not his fault he bit the Firefighter. The firefighter did a great job and should get a great commendation. But yes, the dog SHOULD be saved.
Posted by: Victoria M. | January 22, 2010 at 06:26 PM
The LAFD is ready to respond to a wide variety of emergencies, including river rescues. Conditions that are in play currently create a risky opportunity for people to do things that in hindsight, may not be appropriate. One of the more common events is people getting into the LA River and other debris channels.
Rescuing the dog may have been expensive. It certainly will register with anyone who cares for living creatures (animal or human). The key point is that this rescue took place, in part, to prevent a second rescue - that of a person attempting to rescue the dog and becoming a victim themselves. And as such, the question to the public regarding the value of this rescue is perhaps a bit inflammatory. It would be nice of the media reported the news, rather than attempting to create its own "news" or, um, entertainment. That written, the Times is typically on the mark with its blog entries.
And, a frightened animal will certain defend itself, so the dog biting the FF was not an unexpected event. On the presumption that the animal is not ill, the FF will likely remember this as a highlight in his career. Certainly, he'll be the hot topic in his fire station for some time to come.
P.S. It is unfortunate that someone would make a judgment on rescuing an animal based on the (assumption) that dogs have no souls. Anyone who has owned a dog and watched its behavior can clearly see they are thoughtful, smart, and emotional creatures.
Posted by: Chris Saris | January 22, 2010 at 06:33 PM
I think that was their call, and who should question them, The News Media, GO FIGURE
Posted by: Cruiser 63 | January 22, 2010 at 06:35 PM
The fireman was getting paid OT. He doesn't care.
Posted by: You | January 22, 2010 at 06:36 PM
What no one is considering is the incredible value this operation had as a dry run for when a human being is caught in the same precarious position. This tested (and proved) the rapid response and deployment capabilities, as well as inter agency cooperation skills, of the Vernon and LA City Fire Depts. I can tell you from personal experience as a first responder that right now, both departments are debriefing, discussing what went right, what went wrong, and how next time they can be better, faster, safer. This operation actually is very valuable, and will help save human lives one day. Way to go guys.
Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2010 at 06:36 PM
The fireman was getting paid OT.
Posted by: You | January 22, 2010 at 06:37 PM
I grew up with the image of brave firefighters saving homes AND rescuing cats from trees. Did people argue about departmental efficacy and cost-benefit analysis then, and I forgot? Good job, LAFD. You guys are heroes.
Posted by: C'mon | January 22, 2010 at 06:37 PM
Clearly it is not cost effective to spend thousands of dollars rescuing dogs. But very little of the dollars spent by our government is worth while. A least the out come came to a positive conclusion. Which is better than 90% of Villaraigosa's projects.
Posted by: hudel | January 22, 2010 at 06:37 PM
That's man's best friend. No more words necessary.
Posted by: David | January 22, 2010 at 06:38 PM
Yes--firefighters should continue to rescue pets and animals! We humans domesticated them and we are their keepers. Not only that, how life-affirming when a life is saved because someone cared and put their personal safety aside to save another, regardless if that life is human or animal. It is uplifting to see good news about caring people like this firefighter. Mr. St.Georges, you are a hero! Thank you for acting so selfless in rescuing this poor dog in the LA river and despite getting bitten, you held on strong! You are a true hero to me!
Posted by: M.C | January 22, 2010 at 06:38 PM
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” Gahndi
Posted by: Ameer | January 22, 2010 at 06:38 PM