How many times have you heard a fire chief or officer say that the job isn't fun anymore? I've heard it too many times, I'm afraid, because the departments they work for are perceived as cash cows — and hungry critics are asking for their slaughter.

All areas of public service are coming under scrutiny. Recently, a group of homeowners in a subdivision near mine declared that it wanted to secede from the park district. Several of the homeowners claimed that their children did not use the park district facilities, therefore they wanted to stop paying taxes to the district.

Fortunately, district records indicated that the majority of families did participate in park activities, so that issue went away. But questions about secession's effect on property values if future homebuyers didn't have access to one of the premier park districts in the state fell on deaf ears.

Fire and emergency services are facing similar battles and misconceptions. Citizens who never have to call 911 don't realize its importance; those who eventually do need emergency services criticize "imperfect" response. I fear the emergency services will have an overhaul forced upon them. One only has to look to Australia, Singapore, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to see what upheaval and re-structuring did to their emergency services. While each survived — even thrived in some cases — they were forced to make major changes in everything from response to prevention.

What might the American fire service be asked to reform?

Pensions. I conducted a quick survey of fire chiefs and found pension contributions ranging from 9.5% in Illinois to 7% in Florida and numbers everywhere in between. Pensions have become a hot potato, and many are lacking funding from the cities they protect.

Consolidation/dissolution. While some counties look to consolidate fire and emergency-service departments, others answer to politicians who seek to dissolve tried-and-true response methods, such as automatic aid. Some politicians even are considering elected fire chiefs. Who ultimately will pay the price for these decisions?

Staffing. Every firefighter who is let go because of budget woes impacts the department and the community. But by how much? Does the loss of one career firefighter on a shift add 30 seconds or a minute to the response time? While reducing six firefighters to four might seem to be common sense, four to two is not an uncommon occurrence.

Volunteers. As more volunteers fail to respond or join fire departments, communities will be forced to hire full-time firefighters to make up for the lack of staffing. This means departments will have to purchase more turnout gear, pay salaries and benefits, and upgrade equipment.

Apparatus. Rising fuel costs and higher maintenance fees are required to extend the life of fire apparatus if budgets limit new purchases.

EMS. According to EMS Viewpoints columnist Bruce Evans, international EMS corporations are making in-roads in the U.S. — and are targeting a large chunk of fire department' revenues.

Calls. Now, more than ever, chiefs need statistical data for the bean counters who are staring them down in council meetings. NFIRS was updated — but contributing numbers to the system is only half of it. You need to study the stats, not only from your department, but from your neighboring and statewide departments.

Must we have another major catastrophe to get the attention — and respect — of politicians and citizens? Hopefully not, but every chief needs to take a serious look at the future and decide what type of department and services he will be able to provide.

Will it ever be fun again? I don't have the answer to that question. But I'd be willing to be that it will be very different in the future.

What do you think? Tell us in the comment box below.