A while back someone on here posted something about companies like sea tow and tow boat us take over all search and rescue missions. Sounds really silly to me but I was wondering if anyone else had heard this rumor?

Just a rumor. Those companies have been around for a long time and routinely assist with disabled vessels, as do good sams.

I sincerely doubt commercial salvage companies will ever entirely replace the CG for SAR. There isn't much money in running search patterns for hours or days at a time looking for a PIW or capsized vsl.

also, who will insure this type of work?

First off lets get one thing straight, Sea Tow & Boat US dont do Search and Rescue. They never will. They give tows & general stuff that we would normally MARB. They provide that service to the public at a cost. The only "SAR" they preform is as a good samaritan in awnser to a UMIB.
On the flip side tho it does free us up to do more real SAR.

As to the second question, Insure what type of work?

Actually Boat US and Sea Tow supposedly do non emergency SAR, may be after a MARB and may be not. They are under way normally and at times are first o/s if in the area. They also preform salvage work, including towing grounded vessels which the CG wont (can't) do. Been on both sides of the fence so to speak.
I too dont think they will ever take over all SAR, but in populated boating areas where comercial towing companies have a presence, they seem to handle the bulk of assistance. Could also be that most or alot of boaters now purchase insurance thru them.

The only true way to tell is not to use a case number for monitoring them towing someone in or bringing them gas or what not....
may be have another column for that instead of a case number... Sure that should make someone mad!!

Rock on and keep having fun!!
BillD

quote:

Originally posted by Palleon:
First off lets get one thing straight, Sea Tow & Boat US dont do Search and Rescue. They never will. They give tows & general stuff that we would normally MARB. They provide that service to the public at a cost. The only "SAR" they preform is as a good samaritan in awnser to a UMIB.
On the flip side tho it does free us up to do more real SAR.

As to the second question, Insure what type of work?

What insurance company would cover an outfit to do Serious SAR? I highly doubt any would insure the company against liablity, loss of life or property of the outfit performing the mission.

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!

Yea............all your questions can be answered in a Sar Funds class or your District's Sar Plan.

SARFUND discusses rumors of wether or not SAR will be civilianized in the future? I must have taken a different course... The original question had to do with scuttlebutt about the mission's future, not current policy.

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.

quote:

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.

There are plenty of services we pay for, but do not use directly. I pay for vaccinations that prevent disease spreading through the population. My taxes pay for roads I never travel on, but promote the easy flow of goods and services I benefit from. An educated, responsible adult costs less than housing an inmate, let alone the cost of his/her actions.

Sure, even economist Milton Freeman, a strong advocate of free market capitalism admits there are some things private enterprise cannot or will not do.

How many times have you seen Life Flight wave off a mission only to have the medical patient transported by the Coast Guard? How far is Sea Tow willing to go out and in what kind of weather?

As far as the cost of the CG vs private enterprise? Look at the studies done by the GAO, the CG is a bargain. I doubt a private contractor could pull it off as cheap.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
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!

With all due respect Master Chief the Maritime SAR Assistance Policy (MSAP) doesn't mention anything about taxpayers pockets, but outlines an entirely different reason for our not chasing down more* disabled boaters...

quote:

The MSAP is the result of an effort enacted by Congress in 1982. It directed the Commandant to “review Coast Guard policies and procedures for towing and salvage of disabled vessels in order to further minimize the possibility of Coast Guard competition or interference with...commercial enterprise.” The review was directed because of congressional concern that Coast Guard resources were being used unnecessarily to provide nonemergency
assistance to disabled vessels that could be adequately performed by the private sector.

* I use "more" vice "every" to reflect that even after the MSAP said "Knock it off!" we may still provide assistance if certain stipulations are met.

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?

And we already have volunteer maritime SAR organization...it's called the AUX. If we're talking about trimming taxes. Humanitarian emergency services should be one of the last places we look to.

quote:

Originally posted by n1dp:

quote:

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.

There are plenty of services we pay for, but do not use directly. I pay for vaccinations that prevent disease spreading through the population. My taxes pay for roads I never travel on, but promote the easy flow of goods and services I benefit from.

And because these things happen, that makes it acceptable?

quote:

How many times have you seen Life Flight wave off a mission only to have the medical patient transported by the Coast Guard? How far is Sea Tow willing to go out and in what kind of weather?

Do either of those services provide a private, insurance-based SAR service?

quote:

As far as the cost of the CG vs private enterprise? Look at the studies done by the GAO, the CG is a bargain. I doubt a private contractor could pull it off as cheap.

I haven't seen those studies. I will certainly check them out sometime.

This message has been edited. Last edited 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?

quote:

And because these things happen, that makes it acceptable?

Take a look at American history, Colonial and beyond. There has always been a "common" that taxpayers support. It depends upon the needs of the populace.

There are those free market purists, I think you are trying really hard to be one, that states that everything should be privatized. Then there those who wish we adopt a socialist economy along the lines of Sweden in the 70s. Thankfully neither side has their way.

As socialist as some would make us out to be, most of our commerce and services are delivered by the free market.

Interesting the debate about privatization of Government functions...

Back in the early Reagan years, David Stockman, budget guru for the President, had the Coast Guard on the chopping block. Pretty much everything was divided up into the private sector or was going to be given to the DOD. Then, the wiz kids stared to read and understand US Code. You know, the part about the Coast Guard's unique legal authority to board vessels on the high sea as a law enforcement action vice act of war? An important part of numerous International Treaties? That put an end to it, sort of.

A-76 Program, named for some chapter of legislation, came out of the Reagan days calling for more Federal Government operations to be run by the private sector vice government personnel. The CG swalloed hard on A-76. In some areas it has saved money. The one case I do know about is the Base Operating Services contract (BOSS) for Support Center Kodiak. As of the late 90s when I left, and after going through three or more contractors, the cost of providing the same services cost the same; Contractor or Civil Service staffing. As some of the people who survived galley contractors going bankrupt? It wasn't pretty.

The mishmash of Coast Guard functions have turned out to be quite complimentary. When you build and plan for one, you have two more covered. Katrina is a great example of this. Not just the flying stuff, some of the stories link from these forums about surface ops are amazing.

The BRAC commission in the 90s shut down the Sacramento ALC (Air Logistics Center). This was one of the best overhaul centers in the DOD. The parts we got for them from the C130 were very reliable. After they dried up, the Coast Guard started having to send more and more parts to private contractor. Believe me when I say the stuff that what came back from repair was absolute garbage. It created more paperwork, more down time, and less readiness in the field.

The Coast Guard's organic Aircraft Repair and Supply Center is a bargain compared to most contract services. It uses a mix of military, government civilian and contractor services. The key is ownership. The people involved have more than a pure profit motive.

quote:

Originally posted by n1dp:

quote:

And because these things happen, that makes it acceptable?

Take a look at American history, Colonial and beyond. There has always been a "common" that taxpayers support.

And those commons you speak of that the people have always supported were what was provided in the Constitution. These days, the people are providing for a lot more than that, the majority of which could be provided by private interests at a savings to taxpayers.

quote:

There are those free market purists, I think you are trying really hard to be one, that states that everything should be privatized.

You are incorrect. I am not an anarco-capitalist. I believe that government should provide for certain things that we should never rely on private interests for, such as a court system and national defense. But, SAR? What about the states? Where have they come into the equation? And, if private interests could be utilized at a cost-savings to the taxpayer, why not consider them? Personally, I like having less money stolen from me instead of more.

The assumption is that private enterprise always does it cheaper than government. Mostly so, but there are those services that have evolved over the years, from being non-existent to being "essential." I would hate to go backwards just on principle.

What happens when a SAR case is beyond the waters of a state? Would multiple state services be cheaper, over all, than a national service? Was the effort by the Coast Guard a waste of taxpayer's money during Katrina? Heck, much of it was inland.

There is no mention of a Coast Guard, Air Force, etc. in the Constitution, but there is that Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sometimes the people demand from their Federal Government services that promote the "general Welfare." Much of what the Coast Guard does is from policy written from the blood of those who have perished long before us.

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.

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

Commercial SAR versus CG SAR? How about Blackwater versus the Marines? Fair example? Nothing against the Blackwater folks, but I like my defense done by the Marines and my SAR done by the CG.