quote:

Originally posted by militia1:

quote:

There is a lot of very good reasons you don't see a fleet of tow trucks painted fire engine red, lined up at a fire station. It isn't the taxpayers jobs to chase down every flat tire, empty gas tank or minor engine problem, nor to remove wrecked vehicles. I say 'taxpayers job' becuase that is where they money comes from for the Fire Dept. You got to have a fairly serious (ie EMERGENCY) need for a Fire Truck. Same for us. The good taxpayers around the country pay for us and our boats, airplays and cutters. Triple A towing is a great world of work for the commericial field to get in to. We always have been and always will be there for real emergencies. For triple A tow work, call triple A (AKA BOATUS or the others). Our folks work hard enough as it is!

Actually, they arent painted red, they are yellow. And most of the rich states and counties run there own disabled motorist and accident teams. The logic being that if I get you off the side of the road, I dont have to worry about back ups on I495, and the accidents the rubberneckers cause. The trucks carry gas for those who run out, and assist with tires. They are also tow trucks to move you off the interstates.

T

Great Point. To properly put that in to our perspective, if you break down in the middle of a major shipping channel in NY harbor, SF Harbor or something like that, where you are an immediate danger or obstruction to other traffic, the Gov't would take care of it.

when your A$$ is in deep **** you dont care whos going to save you

quote:

Originally posted by Sparks98:

quote:

Originally posted by Dog_show:

quote:

Originally posted by Sparks98:
A civilian organization performing maritime SAR is actually not that far-fetched of an idea.

Volunteer civilian organizations perform land SAR all the time at a far less expense to taxpayers than an all-expenses paid government agency. Why not do that in the maritime world?

What about a for-profit company? Imagine how much money taxpayers would save if we only had to pay for SAR services when/if we purchase insurance, when/if we decided to go out on a boat, instead of constantly being taxed whether we go out on a boat or not.

We should also only be taxed to fund wars only if we believe in them?

I'm not sure how you are associating funding wars with this discussion about funding SAR operations but, since you mentioned it, yes, having the option to provide government with less money when we don't agree with the wars they get us in or more money when we do agree with the wars they get us in would be nice.

That could easily be done with a government revenue system that is more people-friendly, whether it's one of any non-tax based options (like a national lottery) or tax based (like a national sales-tax).

quote:

And we already have volunteer maritime SAR organization...it's called the AUX.

That's a very good point. So, why not use them more primarily and save the taxpayer a lot of money?

Because if they were primary asset, they could not be called Auxillary?

No offense to the Aux. but I think the time a volunteer citzen has to train is not very logical in responding to worse case scenario SAR. I also heard it's hard to find civilians with helicopters that are as powerful as H-60's and Boats with the capabilties of a MLB.

quote:

Originally posted by n1dp: I would hate to go backwards just on principle.

I don't think any direction that principle goes, particularly constitutional principle, is a bad thing, especially since we are sworn to defend that principle.

quote:

What happens when a SAR case is beyond the waters of a state?

Perhaps that would be a good time for the feds to become involved. Right now, the feds take it right from the start in most case, with a few rare exceptions.

quote:

Would multiple state services be cheaper, over all, than a national service?

Perhaps. It depends on how often cases occur outside of state waters compared to how often they occur within. Has anyone ever taken the time to find out and compare?

quote:

Was the effort by the Coast Guard a waste of taxpayer's money during Katrina?

No. But does that invalidate such an effort only being paid for by LA and/or AL residents?

quote:

There is no mention of a Coast Guard, Air Force, etc. in the Constitution

Excellent point, which is why we should be questioning such things instead of just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "whatever".

quote:

but there is that Preamble:

The Preamble is not the law, although it has been incorrectly used as such. The articles and the amendments are the law.

quote:

Sometimes the people demand from their Federal Government services that promote the "general Welfare."

Agreed. And sometimes the people expect certain services for their general welfare simply because some services are services they have always had, whether constitutional or not.

quote:

Much of what the Coast Guard does is from policy written from the blood of those who have perished long before us.

I respect that blood. I also respect the blood of those that perished to write our Constitution, of which much of what we as a country do does not exist in.

quote:

Your intentions are good, I just don't think you'll get the savings you're after removing SAR from a multi-service agency like the CG.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm just saying it's worth taking a closer look at. Just because we are coasties doesn't mean we shouldn't question such things about the CG. That's like being a member of a political party and assuming said party can do no wrong, simply because you support that party. Thinking like that only weakens whatever it is that you try to "protect".

The mere fact alone that the CG is tasked with so much "multi-service" (more and more all the time) is reason enough to at least consider the possibility of shifting some of that service to the private sector.

I'll work SAR in the CG at the drop of a dime until it is proven that a different way should exist. But I'm not going to discount other possibilities that make sense.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sparks98,

quote:

Originally posted by Dog_show:

quote:

Originally posted by Sparks98:

quote:

Originally posted by Dog_show:

quote:

Originally posted by Sparks98:
A civilian organization performing maritime SAR is actually not that far-fetched of an idea.

Volunteer civilian organizations perform land SAR all the time at a far less expense to taxpayers than an all-expenses paid government agency. Why not do that in the maritime world?

What about a for-profit company? Imagine how much money taxpayers would save if we only had to pay for SAR services when/if we purchase insurance, when/if we decided to go out on a boat, instead of constantly being taxed whether we go out on a boat or not.

We should also only be taxed to fund wars only if we believe in them?

I'm not sure how you are associating funding wars with this discussion about funding SAR operations but, since you mentioned it, yes, having the option to provide government with less money when we don't agree with the wars they get us in or more money when we do agree with the wars they get us in would be nice.

That could easily be done with a government revenue system that is more people-friendly, whether it's one of any non-tax based options (like a national lottery) or tax based (like a national sales-tax).

quote:

And we already have volunteer maritime SAR organization...it's called the AUX.

That's a very good point. So, why not use them more primarily and save the taxpayer a lot of money?

Because if they were primary asset, they could not be called Auxillary?

No offense to the Aux. but I think the time a volunteer citzen has to train is not very logical in responding to worse case scenario SAR. I also heard it's hard to find civilians with helicopters that are as powerful as H-60's and Boats with the capabilties of a MLB.

Perhaps if we didn't spend so much money on federal services such things would not be as hard to find.

As well, who said such vehicles had to be manned by active duty? I think they have plenty of time to train. No offense to older folks, but I think younger folks could especially be capable of achieving the needed skills in that alloted time. If civilians were used more primarily, perhaps we could see an influx of younger people?

It's all just a thought. My point is that I don't think such concepts are far-fetched and we should always question the validity of what we are doing, in order to make us stronger or to find a better way.

If you are stationed anywhere near a Navy base where they have Navy Harbor Patrol, you will soon be having some compition from what I understand. They are talking about doing SAR as well now too.

quote:

If you are stationed anywhere near a Navy base where they have Navy Harbor Patrol, you will soon be having some compition from what I understand. They are talking about doing SAR as well now too.

Ya, but at our direction.
In D13 Sub Base Bangor is on Hood Canal. For a CG unit to respond to SAR there, it would mean launching a helo from Port Angeles is the quickest. Anything else would just take to long. Well with the sub base there, they have security boats. Now on occasion we ask if they can conduct searches for SAR. So in a way yes the Navy is doing SAR, but its under our control.

quote:

Originally posted by CGBM2:
If you are stationed anywhere near a Navy base where they have Navy Harbor Patrol, you will soon be having some compition from what I understand. They are talking about doing SAR as well now too.

I am In San Diego... The entire pacfleet is here, North Island naval airsta is right across the bay from sector. I stand SAR duty, I fly with OPS boss, The EO, The Captain of the Sector at times. I have not heard one word about the Navy standing SAR duty. Now they have taken cases where they happen to just be there.

Boats where are you getting this stuff?

There is a reason we are in DHS with FEMA and they are in DOD.

It seems to me at the moment, there is a war going on. They Sailors are getting deployed quite a bit.....who is standing thier duty. And is the navy going to SARSAT and rescue 21 capabilities?

I also would think it takes a lot of money to add the mission of standing up a constant SAR capable unit. I think Congress would probably have to approve the use of such funds. I think that would come right down the pipe to the CG really quick.

I am all the way out in Guam. We do things a little ackward out here, where the rest of the CG isn't even aware of our existence. But, that is the word, the Navy is training for sar now, and they will be helping us out a lot. Which is still pretty funny, considering the CG isn't even primary SAR. Because Guam Fire Rescue does most of it, we respond to about 15 cases or so a year. Not much action for us, huh. We are usually more involved in DOD stuff ourselves.

At the end of the day, the U.S.C.G. has been tasked with this "Primary" duty for quite a long time. The focus was not the recreational boater, but the protection of inter-state and international commerce. It dovetailed with its' duty of the protection of all U.S. laws and regulations on the high seas and navigable waters. There is nothing wrong with outfits like SeaTow and BoatUS doing routine salvage and towing operations. They actually keep emergency resources free to respond to real emergencies. When life is in peril the Coast Guard has and in my opinion will continue to be "Always Ready" to protect life on the high seas.