I want to preface this by saying Watch Duty does great work. I am not sure if their contributors are on stipend or volunteers. Last year, some of my friends who aren’t in the fire service noticed issues with timeliness of their posts. Then today as the Sierra foothills popped off, there were delays or no posts at all, regarding fires that were gaining significance. I’m sure many of you have either been on or were monitoring fires that never showed up on their screen. Again, this is not a beef with Watch Duty, actually I encourage their participation in this discussion…but I often see and hear from the public on forums and sometimes from elected officials or public information officers to “monitor watch duty for updated information.” With systems that are understaffed or ill equipped any information is better than no information and often the Watch Duty info is timely and specific, but should government officials encourage the public to go to Watch Duty as their go to for fire perimeter info and evac warning center?
If a person truly wishes to be fully informed about local to you information, about the only source better than Watch Duty is to sit glued to a scanner and monitoring all fire cameras in the area (or looking outside). Not really feasible for most folks who have other things to do. There’s always Facebook and Next Door, in my area we have a neighborhood radio net (GMRS), but none of these are necessarily reliable for timeliness or accuracy of information. When public officials recommend Watch Duty, they are acknowledging (I feel) that the sort of raw but semi-vetted/filtered/moderated information being posted on that platform is probably more current than they are prepared or able to provide.
Frankly, I spend a lot more time on this message board than on Watch Duty, although if there was something fast moving local to me that caused concern I’d be paying close attention to both.
Thank you for your feedback and for recognizing the work Watch Duty does. I’d like to clarify a few points regarding our service.
First, Watch Duty has never claimed to be the one-stop shop for all wildfire information. We have always presented ourselves as another tool in the toolbox to help communities make actionable decisions. It seems there is some confusion about the free service we offer. Watch Duty was built to aggregate information from various data silos that hold fire information, including radios and actual data sources.
Our team of volunteers works tirelessly to provide as much information as possible, prioritizing quality over quantity. It takes time to get it right, and not everything can happen instantly as we seek and validate information or data. This is a delicate space to operate in, and we strive to ensure that facts are facts, not just information. Before Watch Duty existed, many of us waited for updates that didn’t have half of what we needed to know. Watch Duty has filled a significant gap in the wildfire information space and offers a platform for delivery like nothing else. We avoid the misinformation found in comment sections with our one-way communication approach.
Over the last 24 hours alone, the team here at Watch Duty has covered 75 fires in the state of California. Each one requires a high level of diligence and attention to ensure accuracy.
As we continue on this mission, we are continually creating and growing partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies, which allows us to get official information even quicker than we ever have before.
We always encourage everyone to use all available tools and not rely on Watch Duty as a full replacement. We are here to complement existing resources and get information directly to communities outside of social media. Our team follows a strict code of conduct, which can be found here: Watch Duty Code of Conduct.
You can learn more about how Watch Duty works here: Watch Duty Overview.
Watch Duty is a non-profit NGO powered by volunteers. I am incredibly proud of the work our team does every day and the valuable information they provide. Our end goal is to help, not replace. Even with small delays, the information we provide is often hours ahead of other sources. Ultimately, we suggest getting your information from wherever you feel most comfortable.
Thank you for your continued support and understanding.
Nick Russell
VP of Operations
Watch Duty
nick@watchduty.org
Im 60/40 on public officials pushing the use of watchduty without having someone representing an agency posting the information. So long the information is accurate it’s fine. Encouraged use by public officials is generally seen as an endorsement by the government in the eyes of the public. Get it right things will keep moving along but get one thing wrong then public trust is shaken a bit.
With how well watchduty has been able get good information out quickly it shows far behind public agencies are when it comes to information sharing.
It would seem that the biggest issue with officials pushing Watch Duty is availability of a scanner/reporter for a given incident — perhaps Nick’s fantastic response above should be adopted and adapted by officials that are pushing it as a source for information. The Push notifications alone can make WD a very valuable tool for quickly getting info out there, and I’ve personally received pushes before hearing an update on an online scanner feed — this tells me that the reporter is really on their game if they can get a given update out before the time-delayed livestream makes it to my phone 30 seconds to 3 minutes after the actual radio traffic.
If the PIO is also a WD volunteer, wellllll I guess you get the best of both worlds, but (in my mind, at least) the ideal WD reporter for a given incident is live and local… though perhaps not TOO local. Boots on the ground with local knowledge, monitoring an actual scanner that they can control to add/skip channels based on the incident activity, but not so close that they’re tied up in evacs or otherwise emotionally impacted by the fire. Broadcastify feeds are great for what they are, for sure, but the reliance on someone else’s equipment, internet connection, and frequency load, as well as the inability to stream some of the tac frequencies can limit its effectiveness.
The biggest downsides, of course, are the unavailability of a reporter being on duty for a given incident if WD is the only tool in someone’s box or, if the reporter isn’t local/monitoring live traffic, an issue with the feed that the reporter is monitoring.
Thanks again to the Watch Duty team for being such a valuable source of information in dynamic, complex and all-too-often emotionally fraught situations!
I think this is the perfect opportunity for a partnership with government and Watch Duty which is a non-profit.
I have personally met John and Nick and they are doing this because as highlighted above, the agencies cant move fast enough in this new era of information.
They were affected by fire and are filling a need they personally lived through.
If the public loves watchduty, why not just embrace it and have the government entities supplement it and adopt it as an additional application for notification.
X, Facebook, News etc etc are still media channels that agencies will feed and if your feeding them why not watch duty, I don’t see them as any different.
Are you saying you don’t like everything jamming up at 4pm for afternoon indices and fire weather forecast? 
I agree with the ideal model being local intel with live radio in hand (and the contextual intelligence to understand what they’re hearing.) Behind the scenes, WD does have some internal audio streaming capabilities that are single-digit second delays vs the shoutcast/radiofeed 2min delays we are used to. But nothing can replace a local who knows their community, historical behavior, and can make their radios sing an opera. WD does benefit from that local intel model in a lot of places in CA and expanding, with locals scattered across various regions that can provide valuable context that outsiders typically miss.
Watch duty is good for separating the wheat from the chaff like and you don’t get the loose screws chiming in.
Watch Duty is doing a great job given their limited resources and volunteer staff.
One thing that I know they could use help with is filling gaps in online scanner coverage. A lot of folks here live in rural areas and might have great sites for them to locate an online scanner. Maybe some of them could help out?
not sure if on your radar but seem to have noticed planes popping in and out of the map at times - it’s been really useful overall though
Just my opinion based on actual observations:
Show me ANY source that’s truly one stop shopping. Most public agencies social media have missed posting timely information on their own incidents. Watch duty is a great tool in the toolbox but we all should have more than one “tool”.
You guys did a great job with the Bridge fire, The updates were timely and accurate and painted a very accurate picture of what was going on.
Another benefit of the WD app versus social media feeds is that the user can control what they see in the WD app. Social Media feeds are driven by secret calculations which only show you what they “think” you want to see with a bit of what they want you to see (ads) thrown in. I think people get sucked in to the false notion that they are getting a complete view of things by reading a lot of what gets fed to them, rather than working to seek out information which might not conform to the patterned view. All social media apps prioritize some information and they intentionally do not allow the user to control “see all” or “sort chronologically”. WD and this forum follow the traditional model of letting the user decide what they want to see.
I will say this(WFI) and Watch Duty are the two sources I start with. Social media sites get clogged up with “prayers/ prayer hands” I used to also pull Alert CA and flight radar 24, and am grateful for that info being integrated into WD. On this site, I appreciate the expertise to interpret what I see on WD.
I am a member of 2 animal response teams and this info helps with “get ready, or not”.
Thank you for being here.
I live in TuCo also and am a WD volunteer and I am so glad you are finding it helpful!
Confirmed how great WD is this last week. I had two friends out of state with fires in their area. One was in Boise, Idaho/ Valley Fire with WD . Was able to advise from CA as she had WD too. The other was in North Dakota/Tioga -Ray Fire without WD. Very hard to find out information. When I talked to her later, she was still frustrated because even the news was spare since it comes from Bismark and/ or Minot and no cameras. Listening to Broadclassify was also a different experience than CA. Both friends are all good. We are fortunate to have such great resources.