Too Many Coast Guard Rescues?

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by Hillbillylad

Then perhaps it is time to audit the spending of that huge budget. Much like the rest of the military budget it is one big rip off. The contractors ripping off the defence contracts make West Marine look like a dollar store.
If the main bone of contention when rescuing a struggling mariner is money, then the first place to start the investigation is on the spending of that money for supplies rather than how to stiff the boatman. There is no excuse for a sailor to put himself, through stupidity in harms way and need rescue. There is less excuse for a large organisation to wantonly waste taxpayers money on overpriced contracts.

Your asking non-boaters to pay for your hobby and are unwilling to face up to that fact. Boating is not a right, it's a privilege.

If you have a problem with the CG spending tax dollars rescuing people then maybe you have a problem with the Fire Department coming to save you when you have a heart attack or your house catches fire.

This is just not an argument that makes sense the way you are arguing it.

Sure there could be bloat in the system, but that's not what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is assessing a licensing fee that insures that those who are most risk for using a particular service pay into the budget that funds it. In having a educational requirement you can take steps to reduce the need to the services we're talking about by insuring that people are aware of the rules, regulations and risks. A side benefit is that once you insure that boaters are aware of the rules and risks you provide an avenue for recovery of some of the funds expended when rescuing people who are negligent.

Your plan insures that we all pay for others negligence whether we are boaters or not. Now that seems unfair.

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by JRM

It's only too expensive when it isn't your kid they're looking for.

JRM

Well spoken

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by JoeFish

The Coast Guard spent 10.3 percent of its $6.1 billion operating budget on search-and-rescues last year. You think you're not paying for your boating with your tax dollars?

Clueless is when you refuse to account for the real cost of things. USCG S&R does not pay for itself with pixie dust and leprechaun fuzz.

In District 7, which stretches from the coast of Crystal River south to the Fort Myers beaches, the Coast Guard carried out 1,300 search-and-rescue missions in 2008.

One search in February/March of 2009 cost $1.6 million. The three-day search covered more than 20,000 square miles and required 230 combined hours of Coast Guard aircraft, cutters and a motor life boat.

All that money went toward fuel, maintenance and other operating costs of the two high-powered C-130 Hercules fixed-wing aircraft, two Jayhawk helicopters, a 179-foot cutter, and other expensive vessels that combed the gulf.

Hoping people will use common sense is what brought us the real estate bubble and eventual housing crisis as well as the catastrophe we presently have on Wall Street.

If the States were doing such a bang up job we wouldn't be spending $620,800,000.00 a year on USCG search and rescue operations.

Now if I was a taxpayer who wasn't a boater I would be pretty pissed off at paying for your boating hobby. I'm a big advocate of pay to play. I don't expect others to pay for my hobby.

Putting in place regulations and licensing requirements that insure minimum level of education for a pass time which may require your eventual rescue at taxpayer expense is hardly unreasonable given the cost to taxpayers.



The USCG did not exist until 1915. President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the "Act to Create the Coast Guard," an act passed by Congress on 20 January, 1915 that combined the Life Saving Service and Revenue Cutter Service to form the US Coast Guard.

With the exception of times of war the USCG has been under the Treasury Department (my bad, I did not mean Commerce) until 1967. It wasn't until Executive Order 167 81 transferred the Coast Guard from the Treasury Department to the newly formed Department of Transportation.

The militarization of the CG and shift from largely commerce supporting activities (save for drug interdiction) happened when the Coast Guard was formally transferred from the Department of Transportation to the newly created Department of Homeland Security March 1, 2003.

I'm familiar with the history, I have had a number of family members in the CG, one of which resigned months after the transfer to DHS after 22 years of service.

Still clueless...SAR funds are appropriated funds every year...whether the resources sit on deck/dock or fly/sail...quote numbers all you want till you can trace the actual expenditure...

Nice cut and paste understanding of the service I spent 23 years in working my way up to being a fairly senior officer so if you want5 to keep googling stats while I have first hand info...yeah go ahead. That's not including the last 11 years of boating safety teaching that might give me some insight too...

If your relative resigned instead of retiring after 22 years of service...then that person is as clueless about the organizations as you are.

And please don't be offended by the accurate term clueless...I'm not saying you are stupid..just on't have a clue how the USCG organization or boating safety ingeneral works.

oh and by the way...the 7th USCG district is almost the entire Caribbean and most of Florida too...not just part of the west coast of FL.

And it traces it's roots back to the revenue cutter service (ships with guns) back to 1790...sounds kinda military to me...high seas interdiction???? Most other countries Navies do that sorta thing.

ya wanna keep dancing???? I bet there's lots more you can cut and paste off the internet...

[Hillbillylad]

Originally Posted by JoeFish

Your asking non-boaters to pay for your hobby and are unwilling to face up to that fact. Boating is not a right, it's a privilege.

If you have a problem with the CG spending tax dollars rescuing people then maybe you have a problem with the Fire Department coming to save you when you have a heart attack or your house catches fire.

This is just not an argument that makes sense the way you are arguing it.

Sure there could be bloat in the system, but that's not what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is assessing a licensing fee that insures that those who are most risk for using a particular service pay into the budget that funds it. In having a educational requirement you can take steps to reduce the need to the services we're talking about by insuring that people are aware of the rules, regulations and risks. A side benefit is that once you insure that boaters are aware of the rules and risks you provide an avenue for recovery of some of the funds expended when rescuing people who are negligent.

Your plan insures that we all pay for others negligence whether we are boaters or not. Now that seems unfair.

Erm, actually that's exactly what we are talking about. When a budget is so bloated and misspent it causes concern to go out on a rescue then it is a fundamental issue.
The RNLI are called upon regularly to perform a similar service. They are voluntary and monies used are collected through charitable contributions. Are the USCG better qualified, more dedicated than the RNLI ? No, I think not, just more expensive to run and more expansive in their role.
Yes my plan ensures the bailing out of others negligence. didn't seem to be a problem when it was billions upon billions for banks did it? will they all be put on a competence course?

[HeartsContent]

Rescued lots of experienced sailors, power boaters and commercial while in the Coast Guard. It's what we did and we greatly enjoyed it. Mother nature isnt't always kind.

It's pathetic what the Internet dredges up from the bowels of humanity.

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by HeartsContent

Rescued lots of experienced sailors, power boaters and commercial while in the Coast Guard. It's what we did and we greatly enjoyed it. Mother nature isnt't always kind.

It's pathetic what the Internet dredges up from the bowels of humanity.

I agree.. but we live in a time where "me, me, me" is the battle cry of the masses... I remember a time when greed didn't take such a prominent role in things.

I for one would happily pay more in taxes to see the CG's budget increased.

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Still clueless...SAR funds are appropriated funds every year...whether the resources sit on deck/dock or fly/sail...quote numbers all you want till you can trace the actual expenditure..

I quoted you actual expenditures. In fact I quoted you expenditures on one specific rescue as well as a total figure 'spent' by the USCG on SAR. Fling insults all you want.

You want an excuse not to have to pay for your hobby and continue to pass the cost of providing rescue services on to others. I'm just saying this seems selfish. I don't see everything the government does as evil, others do. We will probably disagree on this until the end of time.

If lack of government regulation is what you're after there are lots of places in the world where you can live with little to no government regulation. Somalia and Sudan come to mind.

Have fun! Don't ferget yer guns.

as a side note, if you want to relay your insult to my cousin in person I'm sure he'd be more than happy to adjust your opinion of his reasons for taking early retirement. Otherwise, try to be less of an ass and constrain your insults to me as I'm here to defend myself.

[Hillbillylad]

Originally Posted by HeartsContent

Rescued lots of experienced sailors, power boaters and commercial while in the Coast Guard. It's what we did and we greatly enjoyed it. Mother nature isnt't always kind.

It's pathetic what the Internet dredges up from the bowels of humanity.

All those you rescued are eternally grateful for your service. The front line that do the actually work will always have to put up with the nonsense caused by those at the back making money from your bravery and sacrifice.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by JoeFish

I quoted you actual expenditures. In fact I quoted you expenditures on one specific rescue as well as a total figure 'spent' by the USCG on SAR. Fling insults all you want.

You want an excuse not to have to pay for your hobby and continue to pass the cost of providing rescue services on to others. I'm just saying this seems selfish. I don't see everything the government does as evil, others do. We will probably disagree on this until the end of time.

If you like lack of government regulation there are lots of places in the world where you can live where there's little to no government regulation. Somalia and Sudan come to mind.

Have fun!

Wow..quoted actual expenditures...from what source??? The newspaper?
The USCG gives those numbers of cost as if it were gonna rent you a SAR (never S&R) operation... You have NO idea how the missions of the USCG are budgeted..I do..I was directly involved for many years.

An excuse???? Drink on there buddy...the USCG is established to do a variety of missions...every sortie is a multi-mission sortie...so who knows what piece of the pie is being spent when...it all washes in the end.

I served in that organization... so I doubt Sudan or Somalia suits me...not my style unless I go to help stop the piracy.

Fling insults??? I told you it wasn't personal...just factual about your understanding of the USCG...

[rubyjean]

Sorry Joe, had to block your nonsense. Michael..

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Wow..quoted actual expenditures...from what source??? The newspaper?
The USCG gives those numbers of cost as if it were gonna rent you a SAR (never S&R) operation... You have NO idea how the missions of the USCG are budgeted..I do..I was directly involved for many years.

An excuse???? Drink on there buddy...the USCG is established to do a variety of missions...every sortie is a multi-mission sortie...so who knows what piece of the pie is being spent when...it all washes in the end.

I served in that organization... so I doubt Sudan or Somalia suits me...not my style unless I go to help stop the piracy.

Fling insults??? I told you it wasn't personal...just factual about your understanding of the USCG...

All of this because you're opposed to a license to operate a boat? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the USCG, I'm saying that I think we'd all be a lot better off if there were licensing requirements for people operating private vessels on public waterways.

There have gotten to be way to many yahoos out there who are COMPLETELY clueless and there is no other practical way to insure some minimum level of boater education without something along the lines of a license.

If you have some together sensible plan for raising the level of competence in the boating community I'm willing to hear it.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by JoeFish

All of this because you're opposed to a license to operate a boat? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the USCG, I'm saying that I think we'd all be a lot better off if there were licensing requirements for people operating private vessels on public waterways.

There have gotten to be way to many yahoos out there who are COMPLETELY clueless and there is no other practical way to insure some minimum level of boater education without something along the lines of a license.

If you have some together sensible plan for raising the level of competence in the boating community I'm willing to hear it.

I'm not against it...I said I taught it for 11 years. I got burned out teaching people who did and didn't want to learn. the states are already doing it so why a federal requirement? The courses are pretty well standardized through NASBLA so what's wrong?

You think a Federal requirement will change anything? I'm just against another fee (which in austere budget times is pretty well guaranteed) that won't do anything.

The state cops have to put teeth in the current laws to change even the sligthtest behavioral patterns on the water.

What causes most boating fatalities is inexperience and yes the state boating safety courses may reduce fatalities by a small percent...but from my experience...that's about all.

And if you are trying to protect boaters from themselves...you don't want to go there...the USCG woud shut down boating if the winds got to small craft warnings and that would limit about 50 percent of the boaters that can handle those conditions from enjoying our pastime.

How would you like it if every time the wind got over 20 knots the uSCG made you pull anchor and mandatory tie up in a marina? You think that's a stretch? You never met a good beauracrat then.

Be careful of what you wish for!!!!

[JoeFish]

Originally Posted by psneeld

I'm not against it...I said I taught it for 11 years. I got burned out teaching people who did and didn't want to learn. the states are already doing it so why a federal requirement? The courses are pretty well standardized through NASBLA so what's wrong?

You think a Federal requirement will change anything? I'm just against another fee (which in austere budget times is pretty well guaranteed) that won't do anything.

The state cops have to put teeth in the current laws to change even the sligthtest behavioral patterns on the water.

What causes most boating fatalities is inexperience and yes the state boating safety courses may reduce fatalities by a small percent...but from my experience...that's about all.

And if you are trying to protect boaters from themselves...you don't want to go there...the USCG woud shut down boating if the winds got to small craft warnings and that would limit about 50 percent of the boaters that can handle those conditions from enjoying our pastime.

How would you like it if every time the wind got over 20 knots the uSCG made you pull anchor and mandatory tie up in a marina? You think that's a stretch? You never met a good beauracrat then.

Be careful of what you wish for!!!!

No that's not at all what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is either mandatory education or some means of determining if you comprehend the regulations and risks involved in water borne pursuits.

Half of my desire for this is fueled by the almost total lack of civility on the water in some areas that's largely the result of ignorance.

Mandating people tie up their yachts is something entirely different than making them participate in some form of boater education and pass an exam to insure some minimum level of comprehension. Call it a license, call it a certificate, whatever. I think it would make sailing a lot more enjoyable if everyone operating a boat (over some minimum size) had had some basic education on the rules of the road, safety, etc.

As someone who's taught boater safety, where do you disagree? Surely you must have placed some value on education if you were actually involved in it.

As for the cost, here in WA the cost of the course and card is $49 and you only have to do it once. I spent more than that on one Wichard shackle last week. That's a far cry from the numbers you were suggesting.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by JoeFish

All of this because you're opposed to a license to operate a boat? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the USCG, I'm saying that I think we'd all be a lot better off if there were licensing requirements for people operating private vessels on public waterways.

There have gotten to be way to many yahoos out there who are COMPLETELY clueless and there is no other practical way to insure some minimum level of boater education without something along the lines of a license.

If you have some together sensible plan for raising the level of competence in the boating community I'm willing to hear it.

G'Day Joe,

I've been following this thread and now find that I must comment.

You seem convinced that some sort of licensing procedure would remove the "yahoos" from the water... those idiots who require rescuing at your expense.

I now have had the experience of cruising in several countries (or states in those countries) where mandatory licensing has been in effect for some years. Sadly, there doesn't seem to have been a noticeable reduction in the the idiot population in boats. Yes (in answer to an earlier question) I HAVE been nearly run down by a large powerboat pulling a huge wake in an area that requires a license to operate such a vessel, and which is heavily policed by officials looking for revenue-generating behavior on the water.

I'd like to point out that generations of licensing requirements have not come close to removing idiots from our highways, or anyone else's for that matter. Your belief in the efficacy of licensing seems unsupported by world-wide experience.

Finally, I don't think that you understand how funds are used by organizations like the USCG. As psneeld (who is personally experienced in budgetary practice in the CG) has said, budget dollars will be spent... if not on live SAR events, then in mocked-up exercises simulating the real things.
The aircraft will fly, the boats will go out, the men's salaries will be paid whether or not there are real rescues to be done.

Introducing a new layer of licensing bureaucracy at the Federal level is, IMO, something to be vigorously opposed. This does not mean that I am in favor of idiots on the water, or even sorely inexperienced folks of normal intelligence, but that I do not believe that your proposed scheme will have any favorable outcome. I too would welcome a useful proposal, but doubt that one is in the offing.

Cheers,

Jim

[JoeFish]

Jim,

Appreciate your feedback and while I agree there are a large number of morons on the roads, I can't help but think there would be far more if you could just hop in a car without any license requirement.

Perhaps I'm falsely equating improved civility with licensing and not fairly relating civility with increased cost (or reduced numbers as a result of increased cost), or some other factor.

Despite the number of bad sailors out there, power boaters do get the nod for most dangerous (to themselves and others) in my book. Living in a land where pump gas is $4 and the fuel dock is $5.50 for gas the waterways are open to a large population, that's just not the reality in most places. This simple cost factor eliminates a large segment of the population from boating in places where gas is $8 or more a gallon. Hmm.. gets me thinking...

Hadn't much thought about it, but Sweden and Denmark were two of the places I found to me most enjoyable on the water and while I did notice that most of the folks I encountered were both safe and knowledgeable to some degree (more so than in the US), I may have over equated that with licensing. Greece on the other hand seems to defy that logic.

To be fair, I am not always right, but I too would welcome some sensible proposal to improve the situation on our waters.