Coast Guard

[dhays]

IMHP two wrongs don’t make a right. Suppose you had a heart attack and the paremedics just held you and didn’t give you the paddles or anything and said we will be at the hospital soon and you die. Then they say oh well it’s your own fault you ate to much fried food and drank to much beer.

I get what you are saying. Regardless of how the fisherman got into that situation we rely on the USCG making the best decisions. At that point, the two are unrelated.

 

[BandB]

You can't be serious.....

I can understand why he and the CG had problems.

 

[Bud]

I guess you had to be there. I can think of several things we would of done to get those guys out of there Probably should not have turned it over to the coast guard.

 

[Comodave]

IMHP two wrongs don’t make a right. Suppose you had a heart attack and the paremedics just held you and didn’t give you the paddles or anything and said we will be at the hospital soon and you die. Then they say oh well it’s your own fault you ate to much fried food and drank to much beer.

Bud

That is an absurd comparison.

 

[OldDan1943]

You can't be serious.....

I have an AED onboard in a clearly identified area.
Of course if the CG wants to hold me tight, I guess that depends on what she look like. LOL

The USCG has very high standards, they can pick and choose who they will accept. Now that is a great start.

I had a nephew apply to the CG. No boating experience and long hair. (a failed musician) Needless to say, the CG was not interested.

 

[syjos]

I guess you had to be there. I can think of several things we would of done to get those guys out of there Probably should not have turned it over to the coast guard.

Bud, I'd change the name of your boat or at least take the boat name off you posts.

CG will be looking for you.

 

[Bud]

I can understand why he and the CG had problems.

I don’t have problems with the coast guard. I probably have been boarded over 100 times as a commercial fisherman and I can’t remember ever getting a violation. I just do not trust their judgement blindly, They are usually kids with minimal experience.
Bud

 

[psneeld]

Once they called for divers, the kids on scene weren't calling the shots or there was someone fairly experienced aboard the USCG vessel that was....


Again.... based on alot of SAR cases rescuing commercial vessels, not sure I would take fisherman's advice blindly either.


This is definitely a 2 way street......


Plus 15 years in a business that salvaged boats (after my USCG career).... there are always "what ifs" with overturned boats.....

 

[Bud]

IMHO. My wish list for the coast gaurd:
1- Repeat all coordinates twice slowely and clearly, include relative position, direction and distance from a fixed location.
2- Realtime website with all this type of info, so if you miss the transmision you can go to website.
3- Get rid of the guns and steel toe boots. Maybe have one guy on board armed, unless your seizing a drug boat.
4- Create a "Rescue Specilist" with at least 10 years in service. Well trained, experienced, well paid, and include one on every boat leaving for a rescue mission. The younger gaurdsmen will have somebody to learn from hands on and even to aspire to. They need experienced leadership on board, not just over the radio.
5- Restart the pump program with a new up to date well designed pump for use in rescue conditions.
6- Restart the towing program, at least from offshore to inshore and then do a hand off.
7- Know the local commercial /charter fishing industry. Know where they fish and when. What VHF channels they operate on and use them to help you locate missing or distressed vessels. Most of them would be very helpful and capable. Maybe provide a digital channel to send them coordinates.
I realize this is a lot of change to ask of a goverment agency, so maybe start with a pilot program, then build on that.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

Sounds like all the same things I requested or tried to accomplish when I was in 20yrs ago.


Some things on the list are reasonable...some not so much.....some like towing are still done depending.

 

[OldDan1943]

Sounds like all the same things I requested or tried to accomplish when I was in 20yrs ago.


Some things on the list are reasonable...some not so much.....some like towing are still done depending.

Sad to say but,the USCG has always been treated as the red-headed step child.

 

[psneeld]

Sad to say but,the USCG has always been treated as the red-headed step child.

Actually the USCG is it's own worst enemy in some ways.



It prides itself to a fault with doing more with less....thus either taking on more missions than it can handle or doing the job with the wrong tools or getting caught overwhelmed at times.



It is still a huge, complex agency to manage..... balancing resources is mind boggling.



For many years I was in...recreational boating safety/SAR was almost just a thorn in the side of the big picture. It is only a fraction of the USCGs multi missions.


So what the average person sees or hears of the USCG is only one tiny snapshot of the whole agency.

 

[koliver]

I believe I heard the same woman last weekend. She was very good.

I also have had the same impression with the Canadian Coast Guard, at least out of Victoria. They are easy to understand.

There has been consolidation of CC resources to Victoria, so you will hear the same personnel dealing with Mayday situations over most of the BC Coast, whereas in years past, there were stations at various points, Comox, Vancouver, further north. I don't know if Victoria controls the whole coast, but wouldn't be surprised.

 

[OldDan1943]

Actually the USCG is it's own worst enemy in some ways.

It prides itself to a fault with doing more with less....thus either taking on more missions than it can handle or doing the job with the wrong tools or getting caught overwhelmed at times.

It is still a huge, complex agency to manage..... balancing resources is mind boggling.

For many years I was in...recreational boating safety/SAR was almost just a thorn in the side of the big picture. It is only a fraction of the USCGs multi missions.

So what the average person sees or hears of the USCG is only one tiny snapshot of the whole agency.

Yup, more with less. They have needed a new ice breaker on the Great Lakes and could really use 2. Congress will not allocate the needed funds.
Then there is the need for one or two buoy tenders too.

The USCG is forced to do more with less because of Congress and the needed budget.

Dont forget, the USCG also operates over seas too.

 

[psneeld]

The budget is not that simple.


It's affected by internal issues, Executive issues and Congress.


The polar icebreakers are also all but gone...The Polar Star was having issues in the mid-1980s when I was aboard her and she wasn't a decade old yet...but icebreaking is hard on a ship I would think.

 

[OldDan1943]

The budget is not that simple.

It's affected by internal issues, Executive issues and Congress.

The polar icebreakers are also all but gone...The Polar Star was having issues in the mid-1980s when I was aboard her and she wasn't a decade old yet...but icebreaking is hard on a ship I would think.

SMILE Say what you wish but, based upon the many assigned missions, I think the USCG deserves more money and an updated fleet.

 

[Shrew]

If I get back to the original scope of the thread, I think much of the intelligibility of the USCG broadcasts has to do with simply having an 'ear' for it.

These folks talk to each other all day and night, every day and night. They never seem to have an issue hearing or understanding each other. I work in English with Chinese and Indian people all day long. We engage in English, however English is not their first language. Many new people or people who don't do it frequently complain they are having a difficult time understanding these folks. I simply don't have an issue.

However, when I do have an issue, I politely ask people to repeat themselves, rephrase the statement or elaborate. I have often heard people ask the CG to repeat details of r a Security, Pan Pan, or Mayday. I've never heard anyone complain and the USCG always comply's with the request.

My take away here is to listen more frequently in order to better develop an ear for it and don't hesitate to ask a repeat or clarification.

My issue is around announcing coordinates without a geographic reference, or a geographic reference without coordinates. I'd prefer the former if I had to chose one.

 

[psneeld]

Thankfully back to the OP....I too agree that the USCG VHF broadcasting could use the guidance of the average boater. Even professional captains have issues. Heck I was in the thick of USCG broadcasts and I often had to have a part of the transmission repeated.


The local geographic point of reference is a tricky thing sometimes. Sometimes depending on what chart used, sometimes there's 2 of the same thing or things that sound close...etc... I tried to get Opcenters to use geo points...but obviously it is a regional or turnover item.

 

[Seevee]

Agreed with the communication issues. I'll usually pay no attention unless I feel it's somewhat close to me, especially a boater in distress. Then I'll call them and have them repeat with better coordinated. Occasionally I can get them to reference it by point, bearing, distance. Even then, when I can back, I have my pencil out and can copy the lat long and figure it out.


For the most part they have been easy to deal with.

 

[Seevee]

I am a big fan of USCG search and rescue and their law enforcement role in offshore waters. I am not a fan of their law enforcement role in local waters. We have the local police, the state police, and the environmental police along with USCG all trying to catch anyone going 1 mph over the speed limit in the inner harbor. Over the top.

As far as radio, USCG is far better than ATC.

SoWhat,


Respectifully, not even close! With a small bit of experience you can almost tell what ATC will say before they say it. Rarely an issue unless they are blocked out. And, very easy to clarify.

 

[psneeld]

Regular ATC is usually great and predictable because aircraft are.....what about atypical ATC comms?


Plus the difference between Center/busy towers and some off the beaten track traffic advisory airport radio comms.



Controlling traffic and usual USCG business????.... can't say they are alike in my book.

 

[Bud]

The coast guard budget as shown on their website for 2018: https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/documents/budget/FY2020_Budget_Overview_Web.pdf
Total decretionary budget is 10,5 billion with search and rescue 868.5 million almost 10% of the budget. Drug interdiction is double search and rescue 1.9 billion almost 20% of the budget. Ports waterways and coastal securities is roughly the same almost 20% of the budget. They are almost becoming a mini navy.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

The USCG is supposedly the 12th largest in the world...


another budget tidbit....


https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/...w-fishing-subsidies-hurt-the-ocean-and-us-too



Governments spend $35 billion annually to support their fishing fleets, $20 billion of which goes to expand or prop up their operations in defiance of basic economics. One landmark study found that without subsidies 54 percent of fishing on the high seas would be unprofitable, which would force these companies—based strictly on the value of their catch—to cut the size of their fleets and fish less to stay profitable. That reduction, coupled with a concerted push for widespread, effective fisheries management, would in turn help overfished stocks recover and keep fisheries sustainable for all fishers—artisanal, subsistence, and industrial—far into the future.

 

[OldDan1943]

The USCG is supposedly the 12th largest in the world...
another budget tidbit....
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/...w-fishing-subsidies-hurt-the-ocean-and-us-too
Governments spend $35 billion annually to support their fishing fleets, $20 billion of which goes to expand or prop up their operations in defiance of basic economics. One landmark study found that without subsidies 54 percent of fishing on the high seas would be unprofitable, which would force these companies—based strictly on the value of their catch—to cut the size of their fleets and fish less to stay profitable. That reduction, coupled with a concerted push for widespread, effective fisheries management, would in turn help overfished stocks recover and keep fisheries sustainable for all fishers—artisanal, subsistence, and industrial—far into the future.

That sustainability desire will be reduced by foreign factory ships and US cheaters.

 

[Bud]

That is global and that is for "High Seas" fishing which is outside government control. In most cases for us outside 200 miles. This study is not relevant for any fisheries we have. These are fisheries that places like japan and korea participate in. They have no continental shelf so the have to go elsewhere to fish and therefore they get subsidized. That study presented by PEW is just a sound bight to generate funds for the green groups.
I was appointed by Sectretary of Commerce Daley to serve two terms on the New England Fisheries Management Council so I would be happy to discuss Fishery Management with you in a different thread, But I will say this, When I started commercial fishing there were two regulatios fish size, and mesh size for the nets used to catch them. Now there is a book 3 inches thick with regulations, called part 63 of federal register and I don't think the stocks are very much better. But one thing that has gotten bigger in National Fisheries service which is now has a bigger budget than the fisheries it manages.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

Maybe why NMFS/USCG is so big.....



Governments pay incredible sums of money each year to encourage overfishing


Back in the 1980s and '90s, many of America's fish populations were collapsing to dangerously low levels. Some of New England's best-known groundfish stocks — including flounder, cod, and haddock — had collapsed, costing the region's coastal communities hundreds of millions of dollars. The amount that US fishermen were catching each year was actually declining. It was a disaster.
Then Congress stepped in. In 1996, lawmakers revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fisheries management in federal waters, and required that all overfished stocks in US waters be rebuilt within 10 years. In 2006, Congress strengthened this requirement further. Different regions set up different programs to limit overfishing, from catch shares in Alaska to flat limits in the Northeast.
The results haven't been perfect, but they have been encouraging. Back in 1999, NOAA listed 98 US fish stocks as "overfished." Today, that's down to 37 (and falling). Concerted efforts to promote sustainability worked.

 

[Bud]

Maybe why NMFS/USCG is so big.....



Governments pay incredible sums of money each year to encourage overfishing


Back in the 1980s and '90s, many of America's fish populations were collapsing to dangerously low levels. Some of New England's best-known groundfish stocks — including flounder, cod, and haddock — had collapsed, costing the region's coastal communities hundreds of millions of dollars. The amount that US fishermen were catching each year was actually declining. It was a disaster.
Then Congress stepped in. In 1996, lawmakers revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fisheries management in federal waters, and required that all overfished stocks in US waters be rebuilt within 10 years. In 2006, Congress strengthened this requirement further. Different regions set up different programs to limit overfishing, from catch shares in Alaska to flat limits in the Northeast.
The results haven't been perfect, but they have been encouraging. Back in 1999, NOAA listed 98 US fish stocks as "overfished." Today, that's down to 37 (and falling). Concerted efforts to promote sustainability worked.

They could have come just as far by increasing the two regulations they started with: fish size and mesh size, and add in a few closures for spawning.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

Maybe....maybe not....


When the stocks were collapsing....what was being done by the fishermen themselves?


I have had some good friends that have been in fisheries from Alaska to Florida to the high seas to NJ. They had little respect for a lot of their fellow fishermen that had the urge to fish to the last fish then move on to the next.


Just like how to run a SAR case....different points of view.


OK...I am done pointing out that there is trash talk on both sides.

 

[Bud]

Maybe....maybe not....


When the stocks were collapsing....what was being done by the fishermen themselves?


I have had some good friends that have been in fisheries from Alaska to Florida to the high seas to NJ. They had little respect for a lot of their fellow fishermen that had the urge to fish to the last fish then move on to the next.


Just like how to run a SAR case....different points of view.

You need regulations to protect a public resource. The problem was not the fisherman. Fisherman are suppose to catch fish. The problem was the management system combined with fisheries science that was not very helpful. Fisheries science has improved tremendously especially since they have allowed acadamia to participate.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

Yep....it's always someone elses fault....especially the govenment's.


My pretty high up NMFS friend spent a lot of time in academia....maybe tech for everyone helped figure out to help.... but in the mean time while stocks were collapsing...nets were still in the water or where they shouldn't have been even when management said lets try this.



I know as I was in court or deposed enough.