Conference unifix::sailing

    Ironically, I just saw a Coast Guard recruiting commercial
    that stressed SAR.  Helicopter searching for an overturned 
    sailboat, and guiding a frigate to the pick up.  Dialogue
    to the effect that "this is what makes it worthwhile."
    

    Actually, the Coast Guard has five missions:
    
    1.  SAR
    2.  Port Administration
    3.  Drug Enforcement
    4.  Environmental Protection
    5.  Armed Service in time of war
    
    I was at the Coast Guard Academy last month and they were talking
    about their new recruiting campaign that would emphasize the five
    missions.  Looks like this is it.

    #5 is certainly true, as was the case in WWII with convoy duty.  In
    fact, a month or so ago, weren't they going to send CG ships to
    the Persian Gulf due to a lack of a certain kind of vessel in the
    regular navy? 
    
    I guess its a matter of which points you stress.   I haven't seen
    an SAR type commercial in months, while the guns and boarding
    commericals are on quite often.  Its like they are trying to broaden
    their appeal.  Something like trying to turn a firemans image into
    that of a policeman.  
    
    My guess is that #3 in .-1 (Drug Enforcement) really comes under a more
    general category of customs/smuggling law enforcement.  
                          
    Rick
    
    

    A friend of mine who lives in San Diego was recently
    boarded by the Coast Guard and searched for drugs.
    They were off Catalina Island, the weather was very 
    nasty, and it was dusk.  A chopper spot lit them,
    dropped marker flairs, and guided in a Frigate which
    proceeded to lower a launch.  Maybe they were filming
    one of there commercials -- I don't know.
    When they discovered that the boat was out of San Diego,
    they went into a standard inspection of safety gear.
    That's damn close to harrassment.    
            
    I will rue the day when sighting the coast guard fills
    me with the same sort of creeps as being followed by
    a state police cruiser!

    RE.4
     A friend of mine lives in West Palm Beach, Fla. Due to the high
    water line of his 37' steel hull Yawl, he claims that he is very
    frequently boarded by the Coast Guard. After finding no drugs on
    board, they go into the standard safety inspection.

    Re:  .1
    
    Okay, so I left out aids to navigation.  It was just a test to see
    if anybody was paying attention.

    The U.SD Coast Guard is and always has been a member of the United
    States Armed Services. However, they have other missions to do that
    the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines don't have. These are the
    missions mentioned in previous replys.
    
    They are the smallest, and lowest budgeted of our Armed Forces.
    In spite of this, they do one damn fine job.
    
    So you have been boarded once or several times. So what? They are
    doing their jobs, and in so doing, they place their lives on the
    line every day, just like a Police Officer does, and they face the
    same risks and then some.
    
    If they don't find any drugs aboard your vessel they go from a drug
    enforcement operation into their Safety for Boaters mode and inspect
    your vessel for safety equipment. Whats wrong with that? Its for
    your benifit? If you are found to have out of date flares, you could
    be fined. On the other hand, if you needed flares and they didn't
    work because there were too old, would you blame the Coast Guard
    if you or a family member died as a result?
    
    Come on, thank the Coasties for all they do. Admire them for their
    abilities to do their job in all kinds of weather. They look after
    your safety and more.
    
    Your upset because they carry guns? They always have. Open your
    eyes.
    
    If you don't break any laws or regulations, what have you got to
    worry about?
    
    Paul

>    If they don't find any drugs aboard your vessel they go from a drug
>    enforcement operation into their Safety for Boaters mode and inspect
>    your vessel for safety equipment. Whats wrong with that? Its for
>    your benifit?
    
    I wonder what the public outcry would be like if the police started
    taking this tactic on the highways.  Like stopping your car for
    virtually no reason, searching it for whatever they felt like, and if
    they don't find anything, saying it's "just a safety inspection". Seems
    to me that there's something about "protections against unreasonable
    search and seizure" and having to show "probable cause" in our
    constitution that protects us from police state tactics like that. 
    
>    If you don't break any laws or regulations, what have you got to worry
>    about? 
    
    Sounds vaugly like the justifications used in less free countries
    than ours for invasions of the citizens privacy.  You might want
    to just think this over a bit more carefully.
    

    This all seems very interesting from England where the coastguard
    are only a safety organization and the police have a sea-bourne
    division for anti-smuggling work.
    
    I was interested to see the following :
    
>    If they don't find any drugs aboard your vessel they go from a drug
>    enforcement operation into their Safety for Boaters mode and inspect
>    your vessel for safety equipment. Whats wrong with that? Its for
>    your benifit? If you are found to have out of date flares, you could
>    be fined. 
    
    As far as I know there are no laws regarding safety equipment on
    a vessel which is not carrying paying passengers in the UK and
    I have never heard of a boat having a safety inspection either at
    sea or on land. What laws exist over there ?
    
    Chris 

>< Note 709.9 by RDGE43::BARKER "Under the sign of the Blue Shark." >
>                        -< ...you could be fined. !!! >-
>
>    As far as I know there are no laws regarding safety equipment on
>    a vessel which is not carrying paying passengers in the UK and
>    I have never heard of a boat having a safety inspection either at
>    sea or on land. What laws exist over there ?
>    
>    Chris 

    In the  U.S.  all  boats (with some changes for sailboards and jet
    skis)  must  carry  an  approved life preserver for each person on
    board.  Boats  over  16  ft. must carry a throwable life preserver
    (horseshoe)  and  flares.  Boats  with  a  motor  must  carry fire
    extinguishers. Boats over some length must carry a bell as well as
    a horn.

    I'm sure  I've  forgotten  some  things,  but  you  get  the idea.
    If  you  equip the boat normally you won't run afoul of any of the
    requirements.

--David

    My brother-in-law is a commander in the C.G. (flies helos doing search
    and rescue).  We had a similar discussion a few months ago and
    according to him the Coast Guard is actually a part of the Dept. of
    Transportation.  (At the time of our discussion his supreme commander
    was Elizabeth Dole.)  Only during war-time to they shift over to the
    DoD.  I admire the work that they do and don't think I'd mind being
    boarded by them (if I had a boat that is).
    
    How's the saying go? "They have to go out, but they don't have to
    come back."
    
    Mike 
    

    Note an important distinction between your car on the highway and
    your boat on the ocean. Your boat has the potential to cross the
    border with contraband, and your car usually doesn't - unless you
    cross the border itself, in which case you're rather more likely
    to be searched than when on the water. The crucial point is not
    that it's a boat, but that it's operating in near proximity to or
    crossing an international border.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

    re: .-1
    
    I'm not sure that I buy that arguement.  A logical extension of
    that says that "all cars operating within x miles of an international
    border may be subjected to summary searches".  If you don't think
    that it's trivial to cross the border to Canada, just travel to
    northern Maine, NH, or Vermont some time.
    
    I do understand that there is a greater ease of moving contraband
    in a boat, but it seems that there sould at least be the same "burden
    of proof" placed upon those who are allowed to search boats as there
    is upon those who are allowed to search any other vehicle.
    

    re: .13
    
    It may be trivial to cross the border to Canada, MOST of the time,
    but in fact the Border Patrol may search any car passing the border
    to any level they wish. I grew up in Detroit, with Canada only 3/4
    mile away and it was fairly common to see cars pulled over at the
    border for THOROUGH search. And when they had your car and its
    contents laid all over the parking lot, they would simply thank
    you and you were free to put it all back together and be off!
    
    It IS different to be in International space vs. on a US Highway.

     I have never been onboard my friends boat when boarded by the C.G.
    but years ago, when i was younger and my hair was longer, i VERY
    often went through this kind of thing with the police. Believe me,
    i don't care how innocent you are, it's a very intimidating experience.
     You are treated with an additude of "I know you're doing SOMETHING
    illegal, and eventually i'll (the police) find it"
    
     I don't know if the C.G. approach boats with that additude, but
    my guess is that they do. I would not appreciate the fact that the
    C.G. was "doing thier job" while a gun was pointed at me
    during my nice Sunday afternoon sail.

    The fact is that boaters have no rights. Any boat on the water, be it
    inland waterways, U.S. territorial waters, or U.S. flagged boats or
    ships on the high seas are subject to boarding and searching by
    the Coast Guard, DEA, State Police or any other U.S. Authority having
    juristiction over the waters that you happen to be on without any
    probable cause. This fact doubly hits home for me since my boat
    is my home. Yet, I do not share the same rights against unreasonable
    search and seizure that my land dwelling friends enjoy in their
    homes even when I'm tied up in my slip. It sucks, but that the way
    it is. Although I have never been boarded, it disturbs me to think
    that, at any time, having committed no crime, agents of the U.S.
    or state government can come into my home and search through my
    family's personal and private belongings looking nothing in particular.
    It doesn't disturb me enough, however, to consider moving off of
    my boat.                                         
    
    Being a member of the Coast Guard Auxillary, I feel, sometimes,
    that I am expected to defend policies and activities of the regular
    Coast Guard that I do not agree with. I do not agree with their
    boarding policy. I do not agree with their drug interdiction program.
    I believe that the C.G. should spend more effort on emergency search
    and rescue, promoting boating safety and in ridding our waterways of
    drunks. It seems that the goal of the Coast Guard is to shift ALL
    of their SAR and safety responsibilities noto the Aux. so that they
    are free to persue law enforcement and military activities more
    vigorously. I do not agree with this policy. So why do I remain
    in the Auxillary? Because, living on the water, as I do, I have
    a vested interest in what happens out there. I feel a responsibility
    to make the waterways a safe and secure neighborhood for my family,
    just as anyone else would want to make their neighborhood a safe
    and secure place for their family. I believe the Auxillary is the
    best way for me to do my part.
    
    In defense of the C.G., largely as a result of the Bolling case,
    they are modifying some of their policies. In areas where there
    is not high drug traffic, such as New England, boardings should
    become fewer. When they do board a vessel they are under orders
    to be considerate and respect the position of the captain. The
    boarding party is not to show force (no guns drawn) unless they
    have reason to fear for their safety. You can bet that party left
    on the boarding vessel has mucho fire power at the ready, though.
    When you are boarded by the C.G., they fill out a form (you get
    a copy) so there is a written record of the boarding and what
    transpired in case a question arises. Most other agencies with
    boarding authority do not do this. Therefore, if a conflict arises,
    it is your word against theirs that the boarding ever took place
    much less what transpired.
    
    Although I would rather not have to deal with the situation at all,
    if I had to be boarded I would rather it be by the Coast Guard than
    most of the other authorized agencies.
                                          
    
    I apologize for rambling,
    Andy Stangel
    Leaky Teaky

    I really don't think the CG "wants" the Drug Interdiction
    responsibility.  It is an obligation forced upon them by Congress
    and The Pres. without any increase in budget.  Virtually all of
    the officers and enlisted people I have spoken to in the Coast Guard
    object to the "Narc" job.  There are only 38K people in the Coast
    Guard worldwide.  New York City has more people than that in their
    Police Department.
    
    Rather than blaming the Coast Guard for doing what they are told
    to do by our elected representatives, it might pay off better to
    put the pressure on those same representatives.  Political Action
    Committees such as BOAT U.S. are one good way.  Letters to your
    senators and congressmen are another.  I wrote 38 letters when that
    &*$%!!! in Missouri wanted to exclude boats as second residences
    for tax purposes while including Winnebagos.  I even received a
    handful of replies . . . Moynihan's office was the only one who
    actually appeared to have read my letter.  Maybe I haven't accomplished
    anything, but it's better than blaming the IRS for policies they
    are obliged to enforce.  I believe the same principle applies here.
    
    One soap box for sale . . . cheap.
    
    Encore un ete

    At one time the US CoastGuard was under the direction of the US
    Treasury except during times of declared. Then they become a part
    of the US Navy. I remember a friend of mine was in it then. Spent
    most of time in San Fran harbour searching private vessels for
    contraband(drugs and non-taxed items). Incidentally he received
    his basic training out there on Government Island along with the
    marines. If I remember their boarding parties were congenial and
    the searches thorough. I remember him telling me they used mirrors
    on sticks to search remote crevices.

    I guess I'd prefer to suffer a Coast Guard boarding rather than a
    customs search.  Both are unjustifiable invasions of personal space,
    but the Coast Guard, as opposed to customs or INS, has a history and
    the culture of a service organization, dedicated to doing something
    helpful, rather than another bunch of goons with guns who protect
    some commercial or political interest.  
    						<flame off> J

    I guess I stirred up some discussion...
    
    I can accept the boarding policies of the CG with much the same
    feelings as I do state police roadblocks during the holiday season.
    Part of me says they infringe on my civil rights and another part
    says they may keep a few people alive.  I am not at all criticizing
    the coast guard.  They have helped me out a couple of times, and
    I know what guts it must take to drag one of those boats out during
    a gale and 15 foot seas for SAR.
    
    The part I have trouble accepting is that they seem to be going
    after a different individual in their recruiting.  Rather than the
    "save a life" type, they seem to be going after the "I want to carry
    a gun and point it type".  They are recruting "police" more than
    the other aspects of the job.
    
    As one who has been boarded during an early April delivery, and 
    who knows from boot camp that the most dangerous thing in the world is
    a cocky 19 year old with an M16, I'd rather they downplayed that aspect
    of the job as a necessary evil, not the highlight and main reward. 
    
    Rick
                                                                    

When I was in college in the '60s, enlisting in the Coast Guard was seen
as the peaceful alternative to getting drafted.  They got a lot of very 
good people then; several of my friends did their duty there.  Maybe the
cultural and political climate's not quite right today to appeal
effectively to that same type of person.  Too bad.

John.

    
    There seems to be a general trend toward "nationalism" lately anyway.
    I guess i don't have a problem with individuals that want to either
    serve their country, grow up, qualify for educational assistance
    through the service and/or get a reasonable job that otherwise might
    not be possible to them by going into the service.  However, the
    Coast Guard has such a unique and delicate job/responsibility thatthe
    notion of 'macho' types carrying M16's that are looking for contraband
    is a little scary.
    	My hats off to the folks in uniform.  I spent a time there myself.
     I just hope that in today's CG, maturity and good, stable judgement
    are stressed as much as marlinspike seamanship and boarding procedures.
    
    	Let's all try to promote good will while jealously guarding
    our freedom. 
    
    Steve
    

    Boarding parties aren't always looking for drugs either, although
    that may be the excuse they offer.  A few years back I was on an
    overnight race to P'town.  About a half hour after dawn we were
    approached by a coast guard cutter and hailed.  We told them we
    were racing, but as there wasn't another boat in sight I guess they
    didn't believe it.
    
    So we dropped our sails and they came aboard.  I was a little nervous
    because there were several M16s in sight and none of the boys holding
    them looked older then 20 or so.  But the three guys that boarded
    us were very polite, and yes they had a form and checklist.  They
    spent about 20 minutes searching the boat (as noted, first for drugs
    then for safety violations).  They thanked us for our cooperation,
    and then asked us where they were.  Here we were 15 or so miles
    from P'town and these guys thought they were off the coast of Maine.
    
    One thing I found out is that if you're boarded during a race they
    don't compensate you any time for it, even if you have the paperwork
    to prove it.  We lost by less than 10 minutes, and surely would
    have otherwise won the race.  And I'm still convinced that the only
    reason those guys pulled us over is to ask for directions.
    
    ... Bob

    
    	I'm certainly surprised by some of the replies herein.
    
    	Guns bother ya...too bad!  D'ya know how many innocent
    	searches end in a shootout...especially around florida
    	and So Cal...further, more drugs and contraband are being
    	found in northern waters 'cause its too hot down south..&
    	I don't mean the weather
    	
    	Those guys can board my boat anytime since the alternative
    	of no boarding is no control....and I feel that piracy and
    	sea bandits are a growing menace. Don't believe me, let me
    	ask this: Would you take a cruise in the carribean without
    	(god forbid) a gun!? Not this kid.
    
    	I'm sorry to see so many negative comments about the CG
        ...AND I'm sorry to see the reduction in expenditures &
    	the closings of the several CG stations         
    
    	Semper Fidelis!
    
    				___GM___

    
    Just wait a minute Tex'.....
    
    I don't believe much has been said in this note against the coast
    guard.  Quite the contrary.  I believe some expressed a concern that
    the priorities of the coast guard might be changing.  Thats all. 
        
    The problem (for me anyway) is that a service with a tradition of
    saving lives, promoting seamanship, and managing our ports efficiently
    is now being ordered to do increased amounts of "police" work with
    reduced funding.  This re-prioritization can only come at the cost of
    not doing as much in other areas. Right now, 1 dollar out of every 4
    the coast guard gets goes to drug enforcement.  It will soon be two.
    
    Think those buoys will be checked as often to see if they are on 
    station?
    
    Rick
    
    * By the way, carrying guns in the VI or BVI is against the law and can
      land one in quite a bit of trouble.  
    

Surprised not to see anything about the C.G towing policy in the last
    25 replies.  Also about the fack the the C.G. will have to close
    the Block Island station as well as 4 others in New England this
    year because of budget cuts.
    
    Back to towing.  The C.G. Auxiliary is no longer permitted to tow
    in non emergency cases.  If things continue as they are now going
    we will all be subject to the unregulated pricing of non-licensed
    tow operators.
    
    The C.G. did a survey regarding the role of the auxiliary last year.
    This was required by act of congress.  As predicted, the response
    from the Aux, was that if they couldn't tow they would probably
    quit.  (until recently 80% of the tows within 25 miles of the coast
    were performed byu Auxiliarist acting under orders of the C.G.).
    
    The C.G tried to get their towing rights back but have been
    unsuccessful.  The C.G. are now going to the public and are going
    to let them decide if they feel free towing is important.
    
    I quote from a notice of public hearings that has recently been
    issued.  It is called "Coast Guard Assistance Policy"
    
    1) the coast guard is currently studying the effectiveness of it"s
    policy regarding towing of vessels in need of assistance but not
    in immediate danger.
    
    2) this study will have long-term effect on the safety of the
    boating public.
    
    3) public meetings on this assistance policy will be held on the
    following dates and locations.
    
    PROVIDENCE R.I.	sunday march 1`3, 1988 at
    
    			Brown univ.
    			Alumni Hall
    			194 meeting st.
    
    			meeting begins at 1:00 p.m.
    
    BOSTON MA.		monday march 14, 1988
    
    			univ of mass
    			harbor campus - auditorium
    			adjacent to the jfk library
    
    			meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.
    
    4)as a member of the boating public your views are vitally important
    to the formation of a viable policy.
    
    PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
    1) opinions weere expressed that requiring the boater to submit
    to the services of commercial providers is unfair in view of the
    fact that the boaters pay a special motorboat fuel tax.  in addition,
    the fact that the C.G. has given commercial towing concerns preference
    in responding to assist cases deprives the boater of the possibility
    of being assisted by a trained volunteer who does not charge for
    services.  some felt that the fees charged by commercial towers
    were unreasonably high bercause of tthe lack of competiton in the
    market.
    
    2) commercial providers have stated that the fact that they cahrge
    a fee is a deterrent to the careless or reckless boaters who will
    take greater care in preparing for their boating trip in the face
    of the prospect of having to pay for assistance if they break down,
    run out of gas or run aground.
    
    3) concern was expressed that proposed regulations to require
    Assistance Towing Licenses were not adequate to ensure that the
    crew and/or vessels of the commercial providers are capable of
    rendering effective and efficient service.
    
    4) some boaters felt that the present policy does not adequately
    respond to the concerns for safety in the minds of the boating public.
    although the C,G. evalutate each situation to ascertain whether
    an ememgency exists, the response may not alleviate the concerns
    in the mind of the boater for the safety of the boat and persons
    on board.
    
    5) some of those commenting felt that the present towing policy
    is too resptrictive of the accivities of the Auxiliary.  members
    of both the poating public and the Auxiliary were concerned that
    the capability of the Auxiliary to respond to  boating emergencies
    may be eroded by the current C.G. towing policy.  members
    of the Auxiliary were concerned that they may be unable to attract
    and retain Auliliary members because the opportunity to help other
    boaters is a strong incentive.
    
    written comments:  should be mailed to the Marine Safety Council
    	               (G-CMCV), room 2110, U.S. Coast Guard headquarters
    		       2100 Second St.  SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001
    
    	comments should identify notice (CGD 87-083) and the sector
        of the maritime community that the person making the comments
        represents.
    
    further info can be obtained by contacting U.S..C.G PUBLIC AFFAIRS
    OFFICE IN BOSTON. TEL (617-223-8515).
    
    END QUOTE
    
    to think that only you have the power to determine if your next
    tow will be free or cost you $100+ per hour portal to portal.
    

>>>    to think that only you have the power to determine if your next
>>>    tow will be free or cost you $100+ per hour portal to portal.
    
If you pause to think about the costs involved in providing a towing 
service that is available (presumably) at a moment's notice day or 
night, $100 per hour is not unreasonable. I have no idea what percentage 
of the situations in which a boat is towed are due to captain/crew 
ineptitude or errors in judgment or poor maintenance, but I suspect it 
is high. Faced with the possibility of a very large towing bill, people
might be much more careful. I'm not convinced that a boater whose engine 
fails is any more deserving of a free tow (in a non-emergency situation) 
than an automobile driver whose car has a failure. If the Coast Guard's 
budget must be cut, then I'd rather have the cuts made in this area and 
not in others. If you really want a dreadful thought, think about being 
billed by the Coast Guard for the cost of a full scale search and rescue 
effort after you sink 100 miles offshore.

    I read somewhere that the cost of a full scale search and rescue
    mission off the West coast of Scotland (my cruising ground) is in
    excess of 5000 pounds an hour - that's almost $9000 per hour. Want
    to pay that out of your pocket? Wait for the insurance premiums
    to rocket!  Today this service is free in real emergencies, but
    if you mess them about, be prepared to face a huge bill as they
    come after you later!  What's worse, is that this service is provided
    today by the Air Force as it's all good practice for themselves,
    but the government is looking to privatise it - ie let a third party
    take over the service. Will it be free then?
    
    Tell you one thing - I maked darned sure my boat and myself and
    crew are as safe as humanly possible before setting off.
    
    Brian

    --- heal thyself.  I agree that the majority of mishaps on the 
    coastal waters are due to human error.  With less than 2% of the
    pleasure boaters taking safety courses, this problem will not be
    fixed by after the fact putting a penalty on lack of knowledge.
    
    I also agree that the cost of a full SAR is expensive, whether on
    land or at sea.  I also suspect that this will become the subject
    of discussion at a later date.  However___
    
    This subject is about the volunteer auxiliarist (aux) who gets his
    pleasures by sitting at his dock, or patroling bays and coastal
    areas willing to assist any pleasure boater in need.  he does
    this free of charge.  He is trained in towing and other emergency
    procedures as well as first aid.  When he does this he is under
    orders and therefore both he and the distressed boater are protected
    against liability.
    
    His (and it is usually a man/woman team) cost to the government
    is minimum.  The issue is not related to the budget cuts.
    
    A major concern on the part of the C.G. is that if the aux is not
    permitted to tow in non-emergency cases, he will quit and not be
    available for the real emergencies when they occur.  Because of
    the budget cuts, the C.G. is asking the aux to do more, not less.
    
    A major concern on the part of the aux is that the disabled
    boater will sit and wait for a possible free tow from someone passing
    by rather than pay the cost of a commercial tow.  Imagine the
    small boater who lost his engine off the rocks, dropped his inadequate
    anchor at low tide and sat with his electronics on.  By the time
    he starts drifting in, his batteries are dead and he can't call
    anybody.
    
    I am not selling the aux although i is one as well as a member of
    the power squadron (i'm about as inept as they come), but if they
    lose their sunday afternoon towing rights and quit, then the 
    preventive systems such as public education and courtesy exams
    (i did 88 of them last year and less than 50% had minimum safety
    equipment on board and these were boats of the 25 to 40 ft range)
    also suffer.
    
    The issue is not one of budget, the C.G. wants the aux to take over
    BLOCK ISLAND patrols this year because they can't afford it.  It
    is not one of emergency SAR as the aux will continue to respond
    and tow. It is not an issue of deciding whether a non-emergency
    mishaps is deserving of a tow.  It is a question of whether the
    aux should be prohibited from towing because there are commercial
    towers available?
    
    I guess my analogy is should CVS be prohibited from assisting disabled
    motorist because there are commercial towers available?
    

RE: .26,.29--

Though I agree in spirit with Alan that people should be more accountable 
for their own safety and well-being, I worry that having only unregulated 
commercial towers available for non-emergencies may backfire.

As mentioned, there are some people who, to avoid paying that $100-$1000 
towing fee, will sit and way until their inconvenient incapacity turns 
into a bonafide emergency.  At that point, several potential problems in 
one district may all turn into active ones.  Even if commercial towers 
were dispatched at that time to assist, danger and risk will have 
increased at the least.

Whether you understand the maritime motivations of those who request help 
obn the seas or not, I think you might agree that we'd be worse off 
without the willing (and most often quite skilled) help of a bunch of 
concerned volunteers in the Auxiliary.  

And besides, stuff costs enough already; why create one more potential 
drain on the wallet?  Even the best of us may desire or require assistance 
sometime in the future.

John.

Please don't misunderstand me -- I'd much rather have the Coast Guard 
and the Coast Guard Auxiliary provide towing. But, if budget cuts must 
be made, then letting commercial towing companies handle non-emergency 
situations is better than other budget cutting ideas (like no offshore 
weather buoys for example). 

    From the Boston Globe on Monday ...
    
    "MIAMI - The Coast Guard on Saturday seized the Ark Royal, a 133-foot
    yacht valued at $2.5 million, after finding 1/10th of an ounce of
    marijuana aboard, claiming the vessel under the "Zero Tolerance"
    plan aimed at thwarting recreational drug use.  A spokeswoman for
    the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the seizure yesterday
    and said the group was willing to file suit on the ground that the
    policy has no legal basis.  A Coast Guard spokesman said the butt
    of a marijuana cigarette was spotted in a trash can and another
    small amount of marijuana was found in a stateroom. (UPI)"
    
    Now, I'm wondering what all you sailors out there think of this.
    Not so much from the standpoint of whether or not to condone drugs
    on boats, I think most of us would concede the Coast Guard that
    point.  But doesn't it seem like a bit of overkill?  Where do
    you think it's all leading to?  Are we to expect a rash of boardings
    on recreational boats by the Coast Guard looking for "recreational
    drug users"?  What will they do with all the boats they seize if
    they do?  Do you think it's reasonable?? legal?? responsible??
    logical?? tolerable??  
    
    Stay tuned for Police State Academy XIV, the Coast Guard Strikes
    Back.  Now playing in your local harbor...
    
    ... Bob
    
    ... Bob
    

    A logical policy taken to an illogical extreme.
    
    The other day I happened to be eating lunch next to a guy from the
    Coast Guard; I don't know if this fellow was typical of Coast Guard
    members or not, but I found it illuminating.
    
    I said I was amazed that the US was considering sending the Coast
    Guard to the Persian Gulf...  he responded enthusiastically, saying
    that he'd volunteered to go, that he'd been lucky enough to go to
    Grenada, and that he'd served time in Viet Nam as well;  he then
    mentioned with evident pride that the Coast Guard could board any
    boat anywhere in the world without a warrant.
    
    I suggested that boats in foreign countries, and especially in the
    Persian Gulf, might not share that point of view, and that I always
    thought the Coast Guard was called the "Coast Guard" because they
    were supposed to be guarding *our* coast.  He thought about this
    for a few seconds, apparently never having considered the difference
    between the Navy and the Coast Guard before, and then responded
    by describing the impressive firepower carried by the Guard (???)
    
    He also said that they will be getting tough with their new
    alcohol policy this year...  big fines, and if you're caught they
    escort you to a marshall waiting on shore where the real fun begins.
    I think he said that they also impound your vessel, like the guy
    with the 1/10 ounce found out.  Whether they do this to you or not
    depends on whether you pass the "attitude test".  As you can imagine,
    if you're dealing with this fellow and his pals you *don't* want
    to be a smart ass.  Go ahead, make his day!  He explained that he
    could break any lifevest by placing his thumbs together close and
    moving them outwards...  if it breaks, it doesn't count as
    flotation & they can impound your vessel.
    
    If this guy is a typical Coast Guard member, then it comes as no
    surprize that they impounded the vessel in Miami.
    
       - Jim  (Irish Mist)
    

    I realize this is an old topic, but I was wondering if any of you have
    read either the BOAT U/S Reports or the article a week or so back in
    the Boston Globe.  It seems there have been several cases of the Coast
    Guard boarding a boat (in one case it was because one of the
    drug-sniffing dogs barked in that direction), tearing it apart,
    drilling several large holes in the hull, and then when finding
    nothing, simply leaving the mess for the owner to worry about.  In some
    cases there have been thousands of dollars damage (sometime not covered
    by insurance), which the government assumes no responsibility for.
    
    One wonders just who the "war on drugs" is being waged against.
    
    ... Bob
    

    I read about that last night. They drilled pen-sized holes in the
    stern, ripped out bulkheads, etc. They were suspicious because the
    dogs barked, and because they suspected a false hull.
    
     Really scary - the guy's insurance does not cover it, either.
    
    Gregg

    I read the stories and began to wonder how we might react if this had
    happened to one of us cruising in another country. Sounds like third
    world tactics to me.
    
    My question is regarding recourse. Does anyone know if there is any way
    that the owner can collect from the government for the damages? If not,
    it would appear that the Coast Guard has license for "playful
    terrorism" with no accountability. 
    
    Let's see now, in grade school I was taught that our system of government 
    is superior to all others due to it's system of checks and balances, 
    and that the bill of rights guarantees.......
    
    	Howard

    Yes you can collect from the CG (my experience). You have to petition
    to the district commander, provide description of damages, cause, times
    etc etc. There is a form plus they will want to look at the boat. It
    takes time but they do pay, based on two estimates. This info is 10
    years old but gov'ts don't change all that fast... Visit the district
    commander personally. Ciao Ed