I think the "complaining" is more of a surprised reaction. Obviously not everyone was aware of the practice that, at least according to Griffin's post, is not even widespread.
Some of your comparisons in the other posts are on point, but consumption taxes, especially on liquor and tobacco, are voluntary. The bill in question was for a service that was not requested or provided.
The complaints are about the billing practice, not the provision of emergency services, the quality of the services, or the intentions of well-meaning bystanders.
We don't pay when the police respond to a call, whether or not we live in the jurisdiction of the responding police service. We know we may pay a service charge for an ambulance ride to the hospital. Until now, many of us certainly didn't expect to pay for a fire crew to come out and ask if we're okay, just because we don't live in their city. It's not consistent across the municipalities, it's not well known, and unless we do a some research we aren't going to know until we get a bill. The actual cost is irrelevant, becuase they didn't charge a simple "user fee" or something similar. That number had to be some sort of itemized charge.
Landlords can get billed for too many false alarms at the same location. I'm okay with that, if it's a result of poorly maintained or inadequate monitoring system. But if John Q Public is going to get a $1,000 bill for hosing off deer guts from the highway, it's not okay. There is no recourse against wildlife, no damages to be awarded or reimbursements sought. Motorists have to accept that a collision with wildlife will result in an insurance claim or out of pocket expenses to repair their own vehicle. On the other side, the municipality in which the animal was hit can accept responsibility for their expenses related to the collision, especially when no direct service was provided to the motorist, resident or not.
