Proposal to Discontinue certain Aids to Navigation

[psneeld]

Outside the USA all bets off on nav buoys. Approaching foreign major ports (again where small vessels should rarely need sea buoys), I might be trusting of their sea buoys because of heavy commercial traffic using them.

If worried about obstructions/shoaling not showing on charts, then of course use the whole set of ATON. But all the reason one should not use small inlets if unfamiliar or don't have local knowledge of temp ATON

Once those temp ATON are known (even better if eventually virtual) a waypoint anywhere along a bearing to the temp channel ATON works for me, even just an eyeball over compass bearing should work.

If one is having a hard time with that, they probably shouldn't be shooting that inlet or any other where crosscurrents could sweep them into the shoal.

Even I would probably pass on that inlet in poor vis unless I has a solid radar picture. Even then, it there was more than minimal surf it might get a pass.

The only other option would be to ask for a USCG or assistance tower escort through.

Maybe John's Pass is a good candidate to retain a Mo (A) buoy, but I know of many inlets that really don't need them anymore in my book.

 

[Bud]

These navigational aids are being eliminated to " Deliver effective, economical service--manage vessel transit risk to acceptable levels at acceptable cost" basically to save money. I am sure if DOGE looked at this agency they could find a lot of other ways to reduce USCG spending/budget, without reducing navigational aids. The CG used to maintain the Loran C system. When we went to gps they eliminated that program. They use to maintain the weather reporting instruments in the lighthouses, they don't do that anymore. Now they are starting to eliminate nav aids, I am starting to see a trend here.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

I see a trend too.... past USCG services that have become obsolete or taken care of by other services/agencies such as discontinuing LORAN (though the USCG offered Differential LORAN till told scrub it), discontinuing weather reporting in coastal areas taken over by various NOAA/Science Organizations, eliminating real manpower intensive/costly ATON with virtual ones or plain getting rid of low priority ones....etc...etc.

Many times the USCG is told to shift priorities from outside the agency...and has for hundreds of years. Not enough funding.... figure out what has the lowest priorities.

I personally have disagreed with many policy changes that have come full circle, but I know from the inside just how efficient the USCG tries to be and it has earned its reputation for being an efficient gov't organization.

 

[Bud]

Here is a summary of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) annual budget over the last 20 years, using inflation-adjusted and nominal figures where available. The budget is primarily allocated through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since 2003 (previously under the Department of Transportation).

---

US Coast Guard Budget Summary (FY2005–FY2025)​

Fiscal Year	Enacted Budget (Approx.)	Notes
FY2025	$13.9 billion (requested)	Includes fleet recapitalization, personnel
FY2024	$13.5 billion	Modernization, Arctic operations
FY2023	$13.0 billion	Emphasis on cyber and workforce
FY2022	$12.8 billion	Largest to date at the time
FY2021	$12.0 billion	Continued fleet upgrades
FY2020	$11.3 billion	Includes Polar Security Cutter funding
FY2019	$11.3 billion	5% increase over FY18
FY2018	$10.8 billion	Boost for drug interdiction
FY2017	$10.5 billion	Steady increase
FY2016	$10.3 billion	Continued recapitalization
FY2015	$9.8 billion	Modest increase
FY2014	$9.5 billion	Budget flattening post-sequestration
FY2013	$9.8 billion	Sequestration cuts
FY2012	$10.3 billion	Funding peaks pre-sequestration
FY2011	$10.1 billion	Post-9/11 mission expansion
FY2010	$9.5 billion	Deepwater procurement
FY2009	$9.3 billion	Drug enforcement & port security
FY2008	$8.7 billion	Growth phase begins
FY2007	$8.4 billion	Focus on modernization
FY2006	$8.1 billion	Integrated Deepwater System ramp-up
FY2005	$7.4 billion	Post-9/11 build-up continues

---

Trends & Highlights​

• Post-9/11 Growth: After moving to DHS in 2003, funding rose significantly to handle homeland security duties (port security, anti-terror, etc.).
• Modernization Push: Since ~2010, budgets emphasize ship and aircraft modernization (e.g., National Security Cutters, Fast Response Cutters).
• Arctic & Cyber Focus: Recent budgets address growing Arctic presence and cybersecurity.
• Steady Increase: Over 20 years, the Coast Guard budget has nearly doubled, from about $7.4B in 2005 to $13.5B+ in 2024.

 

[Bud]

IMOP. The trend seems to be less focus on safety for mariners and more emphasis on port security, anti terror, ect. Hence why they starting carrying side arms around 2006, more law enfocement/security then safety. Its not a budget issue its a priorities issue.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

IMOP. The trend seems to be less focus on safety for mariners and more emphasis on port security, anti terror. ect. Its not a budget issue its a priorities issue.

Bud

Safety of small boat operators which have more than proven than ever in recent years.... no matter what they are provided with for safe operation, doesn't seem to help much. Just watch Haulover inlet videos. Just remember, a lot of those budget items do go to improvement of Search and Rescue that does save the careless boaters.

The USCG has dropped the focus on recreational boating since I entered in 1977. Dropping of boating safety inspectors at factories was probably justified by safety legislation passed to incorporate flotation on less than 20 foot vessels and improvements in marine engines.

If budgets are increased, it may be outside the USCG's sphere of influence. Mandates to them can drive the budget as often official in congress often sing the need for more USCG funding.

There is a huge difference sitting on a boat and wondering what the USCG is up to and spending a big part of ones life fully immersed in it's influence.

Have a specific gripe, I can address some of those, bash them and I will fight tooth and nail to keep the facts straight. I don't like random, unspecific potshots.

The entire military/USCG works for civilians, try potshotting at them and their directives that are "legal orders" for the USCG and then how exactly the budget is divided line item by line item. Those are responsible taxpayer complaints.

PS... the USCG carried side arms long before 2006.... please keep the fact nearly straight if possible. Plus raw budget data with a "brief" description doesn't explain anywhere near the big picture.

 

[Bud]

The USCG is a Government Agency, nothing more, nothing less, the people in the Coast gaurd are people just like us, nothing more, nothing less, The policies of the Coast Gaurd are what we are discussing not the people or the institution. I do not need your permision to agree or disagree with the policies of the USCG. The open debate of these policies are productive. Yet any negative posts on Coast Gaurd policy you seem to think is your duty to shut down. People are allowed to have an opinion or an experience that is different than yours.

Bud

 

[Bud]

"S... the USCG carried side arms long before 2006.... please keep the fact nearly straight if possible"

Around 2006, I was involved, (just with the location of the anchoring system and pipe) in a project with The Coast Gaurd to move the LPG tankers out of Boston Harbor onto an anchoring system inside of Stellwagon Bank, for safety reasons. There they would pump the product through a pipe laid on the sea floor to shore. It was then I noticed the coasties wearing balistic vests, steel toe boots, and side arms. Never saw this previously. When I asked them about it they said, it was mandatory now. This was my experience and although it may be different then yours, it is factual.
Bud

 

[psneeld]

Wow, one experience with the USCG and it's a fact?

I went through Maritime Law Enforcement School in 1982. Trained in the use of sidearms and LE tactics, enough to be qualified for some police agencies. Most of the graduates went back to small boat stations, cutters or LE Detachments where they went aboard USCG Cutters and Navy ships to perform thousands of boardings all over the US while carrying sidearms.

Heck, one of my "armed" classmates showed up on the USCGC Glacier which I was on, returning from Antarctica and we were assigned drug enforcement off Panama and Costa Rica for a week. We embarked a Detachment who mostly went aboard the Costa Rican patrol vessel as we had our own armed boarding officers.

You are entitled to your opinion till it is easily clouded by lack of facts. The people your were dealing with was one tiny part of the USCG. If it became mandatory to them, sure that's YOUR experience... all one of it.

However, your statement " Hence why they starting carrying side arms around 2006," in post #35 is incorrect. It might have been your experience, but it is NOT fact. The USCG has been carrying sidearms probably since the early days of the Revenue Citter Service when it was founded in 1790. Here is but one source....

https://www.guns.com/news/2020/08/03/happy-230th-birthday-guns-of-the-coast-guard

"Handguns​

Handguns, in the form of flintlock pistols, were among the first and most common small arms available to early Revenue Marine members as the service's original cutters were small craft, only about 50 feet in length, and would typically just be armed with few muskets in addition to cutlasses, making pistols a very important part of the vessel's armament. The example, the first ten cutters commissioned in 1791 each carried 12 muskets and 24 pistols. "

Bud, you have a bad taste for the USCG that I have seen in many of your posts. I have no idea why. Trying to keep the facts straight about boating in general and sometimes about the USCG I see as an important contribution from me here. You can have any opinion you like, but I am just trying to stick to the facts.

Care sharing why you seem to dislike the USCG policies such as discontinuing LORAN, lighthouse weather stations, increased budgets due to inflation and policy requirements, etc, etc rather than just saying you "are seeing a trend"?

 

[Bud]

Your post makes my point. Your opinion/experience are the only facts that matter, hence, the resume to justify. I have interacted with the CG for many years. I dealt with them on a daily basis for over a decade. I have served on a ferderal council with the CG, I have freinds that are retired CG. I have hired retired CG people. My discusion is solely about CG policy. This partricular thread I see the trend of the CG moving away from mariner safety to law enforcement/security. You seem to disagree so strongly that you do not want any of the conversation to continue, so you post your lengthy sarcastic posts as a means to discredit any other opinion.

Bud

 

[ranger58sb]

Its not a budget issue its a priorities issue.

Intertwined, inseparable.

Budget issues are always priority issues, and vice versa.

-Chris

 

[mvweebles]

That is 124 pages of "Aids to Navigation" to be eliminated. There is no way thats is going to help the safety of mariners. Especially new mariners still trying to figure it out. If they want to save money, lose the side arms and the steel toe boots.

Bud

I got curious about the kerfuffle and re-read the thread. Seems to have started here with #22.

Department of Transportation seemed like an odd fit for the USCG so not surprised it evolved into more security than safety with DHS. I recall the USS Cole ship being bombed and the realization that ships in harbor are sitting ducks. I'm also okay that the USCG stopped giving assistance tows 30-ish years ago.

I'm fine with the current charter of the USCG. Might be some argument at the margins such as specific AToNs but overall, good to know they're out there.

BTW - Step #1 of the emergency plan we had coming up the Caribbean was to reach out to USCG Miami, then USCG Alameda that coordinates response. Then their counterparts with Colombia.

Finally, that you for your service Scott!/ @psneeld
Peter

 

[psneeld]

I got curious about the kerfuffle and re-read the thread. Seems to have started here with #22.

Department of Transportation seemed like an odd fit for the USCG so not surprised it evolved into more security than safety with DHS. I recall the USS Cole ship being bombed and the realization that ships in harbor are sitting ducks. I'm also okay that the USCG stopped giving assistance tows 30-ish years ago.

I'm fine with the current charter of the USCG. Might be some argument at the margins such as specific AToNs but overall, good to know they're out there.

BTW - Step #1 of the emergency plan we had coming up the Caribbean was to reach out to USCG Miami, then USCG Alameda that coordinates response. Then their counterparts with Colombia.

Finally, that you for your service Scott!/ @psneeld
Peter

Thank you Peter.

I have been on the receiving end of disgruntled Americans plenty...lots of experience to judge "opinions". Try rolling out of bed during a bad storm, recovering someone and have the first words be "what took you so long".... didn't matter, loved the job anyway.

I probably retired early, well a bit earlier than I may have wanted to because more than one boss and I didn't see eye to eye. That's OK, I was mostly operational and maybe didn't see the big picture. But I knew the small, coastal mariner picture pretty darn well. Add 14 years of assistance towing working with small boat stations and regional command centers and that extended into over 3 decades of seeing what "local mariners" got and needed out of the USCG.

AS far as the USCG moving away from mariner safety towards LE and National security, one has to be blind or unaware for a long time. When I joined in 1977 and wanted to be a boat factory inspector, they disbanded the program around then. Also, the build up in the late 70's due to the 200 mile limit, then the Drug War...wow, VERY old news. Even 9/11 changed things dramatically. That was 23+ years ago.

I get that people don't have the same experience as me. That happens with almost every boating topic here. If I produce facts or personal experiences that support correcting an incorrect statement, that doesn't necessarily shut a topic down, unless the person stating the opposite has nothing to really support their original statements.

I can't oppose fellow boaters wishes on USCG policy or any other Govt policy.. Like anchoring regulations or fishing regulations or required safety equipment and on and on..... everyone has a different cut. But I can say as an insider, not someone with "a bunch of contacts", why some of those policies came about and certainly when some did...like the early days of Pres, Regan's non-interference with towing as I was often in the middle of those local fights between towing companies.

Anyhow, thanks again and I think I have offered enough in this thread. Probably too much.... but most of the Coasties I had the privilege of working with, I can't say enough good things about them. They I will protect at all costs.

 

[psneeld]

Intertwined, inseparable.

Budget issues are always priority issues, and vice versa.

-Chris

.....And often not even in the hands of the agency depending on the politics.

 

[rslifkin]

I'm also okay that the USCG stopped giving assistance tows 30-ish years ago.

They haven't entirely stopped. In areas with limited commercial towing coverage they'll still tow if there's no commercial tower available or the commercial tower declines the job. I've seen it locally a few times.

 

[Bud]

Intertwined, inseparable.

Budget issues are always priority issues, and vice versa.

-Chris

I disagree, You decide what to spend your money on according to your priorities.
Bud

 

[psneeld]

I disagree, You decide what to spend your money on according to your priorities.
Bud

You say you worked with the Federal Government?

Maybe not all intertwined but very many of the funds that are approved for you are usually earmarked towards priorities. Which is usually a big "hint...hint...." from above.

Unless you are discussing personal money..... not sure the Gov't works that way.

 

[Bud]

Psneeld,
I was Mahi fishing the last couple of days, Its been great weather and fishing down here.
Here are some basic truthes. Free speech is why America is great. Inaccurate free speech is corrected by more free speech not less. Let that sink in for minute. ! You try to shut down speech you disagree with when it comes to the CG.
I am of the opinion that the CG is trending away from mariners safety more towards security/law enforcement. The last couple of threads that support that are- reducing nav aids and no CG approved fire exstinguisher for lithium battery fires. Somehow you twist that to be bashing the CG. You consistantly try to shut me down with insults and demeaning remarks. Those remarks prevent other people from voicing their opinion unless it agrees with yours, I have earned the right to have and voice such an opinion others too. I would bet I have more logged hours on the water than you, I received my Z card in 1978 to become a Merchant Marine, I served 6 years in the USMC, Hell I was born on a Air Force Base, Langley, my father was in the Air Force. Both my brothers served in the military one graduated from Kings Point Academy, my youngest brother I brought to the USMC recruiter myself to make sure he got a good MOS. He served two tours in Iraq. My daughter was born on a USMC base. We are a military family. We have served our country. I have also served my community. I have been on the board and president for many years of a Co-operative made up of 22 small businesses, I have served on the board and was president of a NPO for 10 years, I was appointed by the Secretary of State William Daley to two terms on a Federal Council ( I declined a third), I have served on the Utility Board in the city where I live, and was the treasurer for part of it. Again I served my community and country and have earned the right to voice an opinion on these matters regardless if your in agreement. For you to say to me things like- " bash them and I will fight tooth and nail." (#36) this shows your intent, and your lack of tolerance for different opinions and experiences. Your a real tough guy behind a keyboard.
Now lets get back to the 1st Amendment - free speech. This is the reason we have the greatest country on earth because we allow free speech and we have a high tolerance for disagreement. Our history is proof, many of our countries greatest discoveries and ideas were critisized and condemed by many, but our laws and society allowed the discussions to continue thankfully.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

"Your a real tough guy behind a keyboard."

Now that's funny.

Hope you got some nice Dolphin. I got Spanish this week. Getting almost too hot for an open boat..... but the seas have laid down nice. Up here the dang East wind does keep the chop up after lunch.

 

[Bud]

We should meet. I want to see the wizard behind the curtain!!

Bud

 

[psneeld]

Just may happen, starting to rent in the Keys a week here and there as my RVing days slow.

Last trip to Key Largo for 2 weeks in April was a blow out except for fishing mangrove cuts... hoping for more reef/deep water action.

 

[Bud]

I am not surprised by your non-answer, it doesn't work without an audience. Its like a carnival act.

Bud

 

[psneeld]

I am not surprised by your non-answer, it doesn't work without an audience. Its like a carnival act.

Bud

????? Are you asking for an answer from me? If so, about what specifically?

I was satisfied that you thought I was trying to shut you down versus point out my view on the same subjects... so no need to press on....we chose to agree to disagree. The statement "Your a real tough guy behind a keyboard." pretty much signals me to just end my thread participation as anyone that knows me....knows better.

So I thought I would talk fishing for a moment which is better than beating a dead horse.

 

[ranger58sb]

I disagree, You decide what to spend your money on according to your priorities.
Bud

Sounds good, but...

Agency X proposes their budget ~3 years in advance. If Agency X is part of a larger Department Y, all of the agency projections are combined, sorta kinda, with Department Y then deciding its piorities... which in turn means Agency X's plans start going south. Years later, Congress approves whatever they decide to fund. Department Y goes back to the drawing board and tells its agencies what they've got to work with. Agency X goes back to the drawing board and does the best it can with the (reduced) amount of money they actually have to work with.

That's a very short version, but the bottom line is that any given Agency X has only partial control of their budget. And usually, a cross-the-board percentage reduction to every possible program... isn't the right thing to do. Some programs go forward, some get cut altogether...

And then Agency X takes the blame for everything they had done to them.

-Chris

 

[SteveK]

On board I have a chart plotter and other nav aids dependent on GPS.
And I also have paper charts, a pencil, slide ruler and dividers, and I know how to use them.
Is the US still secretly rebuilding Loran? Maybe should dust that off.

 

[Bud]

????? Are you asking for an answer from me? If so, about what specifically?

I was satisfied that you thought I was trying to shut you down versus point out my view on the same subjects... so no need to press on....we chose to agree to disagree. The statement "Your a real tough guy behind a keyboard." pretty much signals me to just end my thread participation as anyone that knows me....knows better.

So I thought I would talk fishing for a moment which is better than beating a dead horse.

Thats fine "we chose to agree to disagree" Disagreeing is fine, even helpful, You crossed the line when you started with the insults and the demeaning remarks about experiences other than yours. Thats when you highjacked the thread with your page long attacking posts. People are not going to speak freely in that hostil enviroment. This thread started with a Request for Public Comment on eliminating Nav aids. A public request for comment from the CG is a part of the legal process to conduct rule changes. They solicit public comment then they have to consider the individual comments and publish a response associated with that comment. You obstructed that discusion with your insults. If this was a public meeting which are governed by Roberts rules of order, you would have been ruled out of order early on and you would not have been recognized for any further comment. The whole idea of this is to engage the public and find out and consider any downsides or upsides to this rule change. Again how can we get honest public comment when your posts are attacking me for my comments about the CG trending torwards security/law enforcement. I have copied this thread and I have decided to submit it with a letter of conclusion to the CG for my public comment on this rule change. We will see what they say. Maybe they will say we only want comments approved by psnneeld or maybe not.

 

[mvweebles]

A public request for comment from the CG is a part of the legal process to conduct rule changes. They solicit public comment then they have to consider the individual comments and publish a response associated with that comment.

Is there an RFC (Request for Comment) process for these proposed changes? At the very beginning, @twistedtree suggested making eAToNs instead of eliminating them altogether which I thought was a productive comment.

BTW - I found myself on NOAA/Wx RFC email list so get RFCs for them from time to time (and post here to TF). I don't think they have to respond, but I hope they consider the comments they get. The guy I trade notes with at NOAA is pretty responsive.

Peter

 

[Bud]

Is there an RFC (Request for Comment) process for these proposed changes? At the very beginning, @twistedtree suggested making eAToNs instead of eliminating them altogether which I thought was a productive comment.

BTW - I found myself on NOAA/Wx RFC email list so get RFCs for them from time to time (and post here to TF). I don't think they have to respond, but I hope they consider the comments they get. The guy I trade notes with at NOAA is pretty responsive.

Peter

They use to have to publish a response as proof they "considered it" which would satisfy the law, but that may have changed. Its been over 20 years since i was involved with this process.

Bud

 

[Bud]

Is there an RFC (Request for Comment) process for these proposed changes? At the very beginning, @twistedtree suggested making eAToNs instead of eliminating them altogether which I thought was a productive comment.

BTW - I found myself on NOAA/Wx RFC email list so get RFCs for them from time to time (and post here to TF). I don't think they have to respond, but I hope they consider the comments they get. The guy I trade notes with at NOAA is pretty responsive.

Peter

After further review - The CG did not publish this in the Federal Register yet. They did a Local notice to mariners. This request for public comment is direct to the CG via email. They probably know they will receive a robust response and are trying to get ahead of it. They will eventually publish a proposed rule in the federal register and go through this public comment again.

Bud

 

[mvweebles]

After further review - The CG did not publish this in the Federal Register yet. They did a Local notice to mariners. This request for public comment is direct to the CG via email. They probably know they will receive a robust response and are trying to get ahead of it. They will eventually publish a proposed rule in the federal register and go through this public comment again.

Bud

As luck would have it, I received the following in email this morning from the Acting Sr Advisor for Marine Transport Committee soliciting comments on discontinuation of condensed offshore marine weather forecast products. This is the type of communication I was hoping would preface the AToN notice in the OP.

The National Weather Service (NWS) is accepting public comments through Wednesday, June 25, 2025 on the proposed discontinuation of the condensed versions of offshore marine forecast products. These condensed products are provided to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for broadcast over their HF radio transmitters, commonly referred to as High Frequency Voice Broadcasts (HF VOBRA). The NWS‘s Ocean Prediction Center (OPC) and National Hurricane Center (NHC) prepare and disseminate these text products. They do not broadcast over NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) transmitters, only via HF radio stations operated by the USCG. No change is being proposed to NWS marine forecast products that are broadcast over NOAA Weather Radio. No other changes are being considered for the Offshore Waters Forecasts (OFF), High Seas Forecast (HSF), or NAVTEX products​

Peter