# VSC saved me from CG boarding



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

In the PNW, and likely most places, the CG is very active in boarding recreational vessels for inspections. I avoided one a week ago as we were entering Cattle Pass into the San Juan's. I was a bit too conservative on the passage plan for the Straight of Juan De Fuca and arrived smack dab in a 4 knot current coming at me in the pass. Eight foot logs were flying past us. And just to make it more interesting the CG in a gofast was coming up behind us with blue lights, damn. As they approach I said, "hey, we have a current VSC", they swung around the port side to see the sticker and they said "fine" and left us, whew! They went right for another sailboat near us that was stuck in the same current, whew!

It pays to spend some time in the dark days of winter to have the CG Aux or Power Squadron do a VSC while hunkered down in the marina. I never thought it would save us from an boarding, but it did. I will have them do it again next winter.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

I was boarded in Los Angeles Harbor a couple of weeks ago. Before they did, they asked when was the last time I had been boarded. I found them to be very cordial and professional. All they did was check to see whether we had the proper safety gear, which we did, and looked in the bilge. Oh, and they asked if we had any firearms. All told, it took about 10 minutes of our time. So, I guess it would be bad if you didn't have, say, fire extinguishers on board, but otherwise I had no problem with getting boarded. They did come from out of nowhere, though. I think they were supposed to give me something to prove I had been inspected, but they didn't. I'm going to look into VSC.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

Agree, I have had nothing but the best interactions with the CG. Highly professional. I was told specifically by the Power Squadron that a VSC will not stop a boarding but it really helps if you can give them the VSC checklist when they get on the boat. That was the first time I've done a VSC, and I will do it every year from now on. The Power Squadron folks who did the inspection were also very nice and informative.



rbrasi said:


> I was boarded in Los Angeles Harbor a couple of weeks ago. Before they did, they asked when was the last time I had been boarded. I found them to be very cordial and professional. All they did was check to see whether we had the proper safety gear, which we did, and looked in the bilge. Oh, and they asked if we had any firearms. All told, it took about 10 minutes of our time. So, I guess it would be bad if you didn't have, say, fire extinguishers on board, but otherwise I had no problem with getting boarded. They did come from out of nowhere, though. I think they were supposed to give me something to prove I had been inspected, but they didn't. I'm going to look into VSC.


----------



## matthewwhill (Dec 10, 2012)

What is a VSC?


----------



## peoples1234 (Jul 17, 2010)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

While it may be legal for the CG to board your boat for no reason, it does not make it right. Attitudes like the CG are doing you some sort of favor because they were "professional or cordial", or that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing because you are up to par, do nothing to further liberty.



> (a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance. When from such inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be taken; or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the United States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as to render such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary to secure such fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or both, shall be seized.
> (b) The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing any law of the United States shall:
> (1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular executive department or independent establishment charged with the administration of the particular law; and
> (2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the enforcement of that law.
> (c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States.


The original law from which this atrocity was drawn from goes back to the Revenue Cutter Service created by Hamilton. It was originally targeted to commercial boats (because there was not really any recreational boats) at the time for, you guessed it, revenue. It has been expanded upon through it various revisions, and in true government style has never contracted to reduce power.

You give an inch they will eventually take a mile.

Recreational boating, not engaged in any commerce, should not be subject to warrantless boarding and inspection. Due process should not be circumvented just because you step on a pleasure craft.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

In all my life on the water I have NEVER been "boarded" by any authorities. The closest thing would be a fishing license check by the DFO.

It's interesting that in a country that seems to cherish freedom, you accept such an invasive act as having your vessel boarded for no apparent reason as normal and reasonable!

Most yacht clubs around here require an annual coast guard courtesy inspection as a condition of mooring, and even that is done with auxiliary volunteers.

The only time the authorities will stop and board someone around here is if you give them a reason to take an interest in you!


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

Doh! Context would be helpful, sorry. Vessel Safety Check or some call it Voluntary Safety Check, I have heard both versions.

USCGAUX: Vessel Safety Checks

The CG Auxilary and the Power Squadron organizations do these checks. Once you pass you get a sticker for the port side of your boat and a completed checklist.

Here is the checklist
http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7012.pdf


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

I hear you on that. I know some people who have been boarded 3+ times. It does seem heavy handed.



SchockT said:


> In all my life on the water I have NEVER been "boarded" by any authorities. The closest thing would be a fishing license check by the DFO.
> 
> It's interesting that in a country that seems to cherish freedom, you accept such an invasive act as having your vessel boarded for no apparent reason as normal and reasonable!
> 
> ...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

If some bozo asked me to heave to or take them alongside while I was bucking a four-knot current, and neither one of us was on fire, I would report him to the district commander as being an outright DANGEROUS BOZO.

Yes, you can transfer crew while under way. Is it reasonable and proper to ask a sailboat to do that, especially with deadheads in the water? Hell no, that's time for someone to report for retraining. Filing a protest about the unsafe request could save someone's life.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

All four of us on the boat thought it was a dangerous request. And while we were all looking at the CG boat coming up from behind us we just missed a gigantic log, literally within a couple feet. When you have six big dudes with blue lights on in a gofast heading towards you it's hard to keep your focus



hellosailor said:


> If some bozo asked me to heave to or take them alongside while I was bucking a four-knot current, and neither one of us was on fire, I would report him to the district commander as being an outright DANGEROUS BOZO.
> 
> Yes, you can transfer crew while under way. Is it reasonable and proper to ask a sailboat to do that, especially with deadheads in the water? Hell no, that's time for someone to report for retraining. Filing a protest about the unsafe request could save someone's life.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

CG should only be allowed to check vessels leaving or entering US territorial waters. Period. What they do now is nothing less than snooping for Big Brother on the pretense of the safety check. And what part of safety is related to checking your bilge? That you are not taking on water? Give me a break... I have a lot of respect for CG but they have turned to spying on US citizens, just like the rest of US government.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

Yup, a simple validation like having a current VSC should cover you for any safety related inspections during that period. That might even get more folks to do the VSC's. I see no need otherwise for these random safety checks. Unless, as you imply, they just want to get into our stuff, not good.



krisscross said:


> CG should only be allowed to check vessels leaving or entering US territorial waters. Period. What they do now is nothing less than snooping for Big Brother on the pretense of the safety check. And what part of safety is related to checking your bilge? That you are not taking on water? Give me a break... I have a lot of respect for CG but they have turned to spying on US citizens, just like the rest of US government.


----------



## abrahamx (Apr 3, 2006)

Why would they check your bilge?


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

abrahamx said:


> Why would they check your bilge?


Water evacuation device (bilge pump) and a common place to hide your dope.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

peoples1234 said:


> "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Thank you for the remedial civics lesson.

Abraham: I assumed they were looking for contraband. They said they were checking for leaking oil or fuel.

For context: we were inside the breakwater near the Queen Mary, under motor on a fairly calm day.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

SchockT said:


> In all my life on the water I have NEVER been "boarded" by any authorities. The closest thing would be a fishing license check by the DFO.
> 
> It's interesting that in a country that seems to cherish freedom, you accept such an invasive act as having your vessel boarded for no apparent reason as normal and reasonable!


Not just the federal government either. State and local governments do the same thing on a regular basis.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

There are plenty of people who want to "feel" safe. An illusion is what they are buying. How do they know that your "safety" equipment is any good? Did they try and use it? What about that air horn??? It could be empty,(they leak out over time). I have seen life preservers that sink when placed in water, all they do is count numbers. 
The militarization of these leo's is total money grab. Later when they are bored enough it will morph into something a lot more sinister. Directing a boater to halt in an area and thereby placing one's vessel/crew in a harmful situation is definitely a leo tactic of intimidation and stupidity.


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

abrahamx said:


> Why would they check your bilge?


I can understand checking the bilge since that's where any water would be pumped overboard. But lets say you have a fuel leak. I would think they could check to make sure you are not accidentally dumping fuel or even oil overboard.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

kellysails said:


> Yup, a simple validation like having a current VSC should cover you for any safety related inspections during that period. ...


Having a VSC sticker issued simply means that you sat through the little talk and *at the time of the VSC, you had the required and recommended safety equipment.* Although it may make a difference to some CG when choosing which boat to board, do not think that it gives you a pass for the year. There is no way to know if as soon as you received your sticker you didn't remove any of the safety equipment from your boat. Or if you didn't replace flares that expired a week later.

I'm not saying that getting one isn't a good idea and a good reminder of the safety equipment you should have, but it shouldn't be considered a get out of jail free card.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

We've done these every year. Once we were boarded at sea even with the sticker, once we weren't. Every year we've learned at least one interesting safety tidbit, too, from the different examiners. I blogged about our experience here: The "Life Afloat" Archives: Coast Guard Safety Check


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

If you know anything about Fourth Amendment law, it is hard to reconcile warrantless, suspicionless CG boardings of privately owned recreational boats--especially the intrusion into enclosed living spaces. Courts have acknowledged the Fourth Amendment in these contexts, but then generally go right ahead and toss it out the window.

Anyone interested in some legal analysis can read this opinion from the Ninth Circuit (applicable to you West Coast folks):

759 F.2d 743: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. John C. Humphrey, W.c. Garbez, and Robert D. Smith,defendants-appellants :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia


----------



## abrahamx (Apr 3, 2006)

kellysails said:


> Water evacuation device (bilge pump) and a common place to hide your dope.


Wow, and to think, I keep mine right in the galley drawer.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

If this thread that started out being informative about VSCs is going to turn into a rant against the government and the legal system, it's being moved. Your choice.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Apologies for my post above. Seemed appropriate to discuss the legality of CG boardings of sailboats, in a thread about CG boardings of sailboats, in a general forum about sailboats... 

But, oh well.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

Yup, that is the current state of VSC. The Power Squadron inspectors re-iterated the "no free pass" with VSC many times. I was surprised to see how quickly the the CG turned away upon seeing the sticker, that was not my expectation. Maybe there is a slight reduction in boardings with it but I would not rely on it.

My earlier point was maybe the VSC sticker should carry more weight to avoid boardings. I do though see your point about the possibility of groups of boaters in cahoots with each other just to get the sticker. That never actually crossed my mind.

The VSC inspection was surprisingly thorough. Two them spent well over an hour going through my boat. Probably much deeper than an actual CG boarding, maybe.



DRFerron said:


> Having a VSC sticker issued simply means that you sat through the little talk and *at the time of the VSC, you had the required and recommended safety equipment.* Although it may make a difference to some CG when choosing which boat to board, do not think that it gives you a pass for the year. There is no way to know if as soon as you received your sticker you didn't remove any of the safety equipment from your boat. Or if you didn't replace flares that expired a week later.
> 
> I'm not saying that getting one isn't a good idea and a good reminder of the safety equipment you should have, but it shouldn't be considered a get out of jail free card.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

kellysails said:


> ...
> 
> My earlier point was maybe the VSC sticker should carry more weight to avoid boardings. I do though see your point about the possibility of groups of boaters in cahoots with each other just to get the sticker. That never actually crossed my mind.


I apologize if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that there are "groups of boaters in cahoots" only that once the vessel examiner (PS or CG) hands over the sticker and steps off the boat, there's nothing stopping a boater from removing the equipment for any number of reasons. There is absolutely no way to enforce it.

The flip side of the coin is that there is no way for the CG to ensure that the VEs aren't handing out stickers to friends without doing the inspection. Unfortunately, we've come across one or two who did just that.

The point of the vessel safety check is education, not as a real means for any type of enforcement.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

drferron said:


> the flip side of the coin is that there is no way for the cg to ensure that the ves aren't handing out stickers to friends without doing the inspection. Unfortunately, we've come across one or two who did just that.


wow!


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

DRFerron said:


> I apologize if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that there are "groups of boaters in cahoots" only that once the vessel examiner (PS or CG) hands over the sticker and steps off the boat, there's nothing stopping a boater from removing the equipment for any number of reasons. There is absolutely no way to enforce it.
> 
> The flip side of the coin is that there is no way for the CG to ensure that the VEs aren't handing out stickers to friends without doing the inspection. Unfortunately, we've come across one or two who did just that.
> 
> The point of the vessel safety check is education, not as a real means for any type of enforcement.


My slipmate at our previous marina used to always give me a sticker. He always did follow his checklist of inspection items though. It's the only time I've ever been "boarded".

I agree with the sentiment that in the past 2 decades we've given up many freedoms for the illusion of security. What we give away, a future generation will bleed for.


----------



## WGEwald (Jun 2, 2014)

Rhapsody-NS27 said:


> I can understand checking the bilge since that's where any water would be pumped overboard. But lets say you have a fuel leak. I would think they could check to make sure you are not accidentally dumping fuel or even oil overboard.


Speaking of which, vessels >26' need these.

WEST MARINE Required Waste/Oil Garbage Placards | West Marine


----------



## WGEwald (Jun 2, 2014)

DRFerron said:


> Having a VSC sticker issued simply means that you sat through the little talk and *at the time of the VSC, you had the required and recommended safety equipment.* Although it may make a difference to some CG when choosing which boat to board, do not think that it gives you a pass for the year. There is no way to know if as soon as you received your sticker you didn't remove any of the safety equipment from your boat. Or if you didn't replace flares that expired a week later.
> 
> I'm not saying that getting one isn't a good idea and a good reminder of the safety equipment you should have, but it shouldn't be considered a get out of jail free card.


I think the ANSC Form 7012 (which the boater signs) states that and the inspecting Auxiliarist or USPS member should point it out as well.


----------



## WGEwald (Jun 2, 2014)

DRFerron said:


> ... once the vessel examiner (PS or CG) hands over the sticker and steps off the boat, there's nothing stopping a boater from removing the equipment for any number of reasons. There is absolutely no way to enforce it.
> 
> The flip side of the coin is that there is no way for the CG to ensure that the VEs aren't handing out stickers to friends without doing the inspection. Unfortunately, we've come across one or two who did just that.


The boater is given a copy of the inspection form as well as the sticker. CG can ask for that, I guess.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I seem to get boarded a lot. All but one have been in the middle Chesapeake Bay and all of those (eight? nine? something like that) have been USCG training exercises. I suspect my proximity to Curtis Bay and that I sail a lot at times there aren't a lot of other boats on the water contributes to it. 

One of my favorites was a winter boarding while I was towing another boat into Baltimore. There were so many trainees they did three separate boarding parties. *grin* The coxswain (not a trainee) was an exemplary boat handler. I hope I am that good someday. The CO put someone on my helm (I was single-handing) who was also quite capable. We kept moving the whole time and there was no delay and only mild inconvenience.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

I seem to recall reading last year that on the Hudson it is rare that you are not boarded by several parties on your trip up and down the river. Sometimes it seems like every municipality on that river has an officer doing checks.

I think it all came to a head with one of their legislators had the boat he was on boarded 4 times in one day


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Better to show a 'yellow sheet' receipt of inspection during the past 6 months than an aux. VSC. 

If one feels its too dangerous to stop for USCG boarding due to current or traffic conditions, simply suggest that they follow you to a safer place to board. They should comply. 
This will prevent sitting in a notorious ocean inlet, full of waking testosterone laden sport fishing boat smart asses with BIG wakes during inflow/outflow 'rages and breaking waves' from 'disturbing' your ... safe operation.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

I get a VSC every spring and have always found the CG Aux guys to be pleasant and knowledgeable. One even pointed out that he prefers doing sailboat inspections because sailors tend to be more anal about maintenance issues. :laugher

He mentioned older fishing boats are the worst, with some being downright dangerous. FWIW they're the ones that seem to get the most attention from the LEO's around here. 

Another of his observations was that we're less likely to get boarded because we're a sailboat, we have new canvas and the boat is "obviously well maintained". I'm not commenting on whether that's fair. just repeating what I was told.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

kellysails said:


> ...a 4 knot current coming at me in the pass. Eight foot logs were flying past us. And just to make it more interesting the CG in a gofast was coming up behind us with blue lights, damn.


OK, dumb question.

In this situation can you request they either follow you through the pass to clear water or (if conditions permit) request they follow you back to open water because you feel conditions are unsafe?

What are your rights in a situation where you feel a boarding might jeopardize the safety of your vessel or your crew?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Some years back, I was crossing the stream from the Bahamas to Lauderdale on a privately owned 55' black, steel schooner. A cutter (maybe a 72?), came close alongside demanding we heave to and allow them to pull alongside. With the seas running about 12' feet, I told the commander that I would allow an inflatable alongside, but he could not put his cutter alongside us. He responded that the seas were too large or him to launch his inflatable, and repeated his demand to heave to and prepare for boarding. As it seemed he was dead set on destroying my boss's boat, I switched back to channel; 16 and commenced to call a mayday. "Mayday, mayday, mayday. I am being boarded by a large white vessel with an orange stripe and the number XXXXXX on her bow, mayday, mayday, etc." 
Boy did that guy go ballistic, demanding I return to 22 and cease calling the mayday. Suffice it to say, he did not come alongside and he followed us at about 25 yards all the way to the slip in Bahia Mar, with one of us continually calling the mayday the whole way. There was a gang of coasties waiting and they searched the boat thoroughly, but we didn't even have a bottle of booze aboard, so in the end they left, empty handed and perhaps I hope, a bit embarrassed. 
He may have had the legal right to request to board, but he certainly could not have done so without, at the very least, dismasting and possibly sinking our boat. There was a very real possibility that my crew and some of the coasties could have been injured, perhaps worse, all because some young fellow with way too much power and no knowledge of basic seamanship, decided to be a pri*k.
This is in no way an isolated incident; I know of quite a few boats dismasted by Coast Guard boardings, over the years. You must use your common sense and protect yourselves from these people, if necessary. They do not have the right to destroy your vessel, or injure/kill your crew.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

The problem is that there has not been a legal challenge when there has not been some sort of contraband or some other serious problem. I think the best way to prevent boardings is for every time you get boarded to file suit for violation of the 4th amendment. Don't waste money on a lawyer, just file the suit. If every one keeps filing, its going to push it to a breaking point. Its a form of protest. 

BTY: In similar fashion to the OP, I often sail on a group of lakes that require a permit. I've had the police go right past me to stop other boats. I would surmise it is because I have a sticker on the side of my boat. 

I also believe that heaving to, and letting my main flap in the breeze puts extra stress and wear on the sail, which I am not willing to do. I sail without a crew, so dropping the sails and raising them is a significant inconvenience. Its a busy process. I usually do not like to do it, till I am in the middle of the lake, because it is more forgiving.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Firstly, that the federal government can board and inspect your vessel any time it pleases is outrageous. There is absolutely no national security issue going on when these boardings are conducted.

That being said, the actual members of the US Coast Guard that do the inspections are among the most professional and respectful people I have ever dealt with. There is not the slightest hint of "throwing their weight around" like other marine law enforcement we have here in Chicago, IL. 

And on some lakes in Wisconsin, the Barney Fife types out in the country take you back 50 years in law enforcement.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

I have no issues with USCG boardings. Generally they are only looking out for your safety (believe it or not) it is the locals that you have to worry about. They are the ones with a set number of tickets to write and the obvious incentive to find something wrong with you or your vessel.

Some places I do understand that the USCG is after more than safety.. but that is the chance you are taking coming back from the Bahamas or any other well known area that drug smugglers launch from


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

You think the purpose of government is to inspect your property for your safety? Should they be able to inspect your car any time they please? Your house?



mad_machine said:


> I have no issues with USCG boardings. Generally they are only looking out for your safety (believe it or not) it is the locals that you have to worry about. They are the ones with a set number of tickets to write and the obvious incentive to find something wrong with you or your vessel.
> 
> Some places I do understand that the USCG is after more than safety.. but that is the chance you are taking coming back from the Bahamas or any other well known area that drug smugglers launch from


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Oneathesedays I've got to start taking notes. But I know that somewhere in the USC or CFR, there is (or at least, recently was) specific reference that in certain circumstances gives US documented vessels the right to tell the USCG "No, you may not board now."

Priority #1 is given to documented vessels that are inbound to a US port and carrying mail from a foreign port. (Which any documented vessel is authorized to do.) Anyone who wants to interrupt your trip, for any reason, can be told "Come back after we've tied up and delivered the mail to the USPS." and there's no discussion about it. If they delay the mail, it doesn't matter what agency they work for, they're subject to arrest and prosecution.

Priority #2 is at the discretion of the documented vessel's master. If the interception is going to endanger his vessel in some way, i.e. conditions are unsafe, or the delay could turn a daylight arrival into a night arrival, you can say "Too dangerous, come see me after I've tied up." It probably would help to cite the code section....I've only got a vague memory that it would be in the USC.

jzk-
If state highway patrols or city cops routinely made traffic stops with long arms out and at the ready, or even with sidearms drawn, there'd be an incredibly loud response. No matter how professional the USCG may be, and no matter how "entitled" the fed may or may not be, the whole business of heavily armed boarding parties is simply unjustified and beyond offensive.
Sure, there are bad guys on some boats. That doesn't entitle anyone to pretend every "safety inspection" should be a SWAT response. If it is too dangerous to perform administrative code inspections (which are what vessel safety checks are) without heavy arms, then they just shouldn't be done. Or maybe...building inspectors and grocery scale checks should be done in the same uniform way. They're all the same administrative code inspections, after all.

Which one sounds right to you? M16's to inspect the elevator and the grocery counter? Or leaving the guns in the armory locker?


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

jzk said:


> You think the purpose of government is to inspect your property for your safety? Should they be able to inspect your car any time they please? Your house?


They do that to cars all the time around here. We have to get them safety inspected once a year and I have been through two "Safety inspection" roadblocks so far in 2014. All they do is wave you through if you have a current inspection tag on the windshield..

So yes, it happens here in NJ.. has for as long as I have been driving (27 years)

Homes are a different matter. Unless it is a rental, there are "castle doctrines" that keep the police and such outside unless they have a warrant to come in


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

My solution to this problem was to buy a boat named "Semper Paratus" from a retired Coastie, with the name emblazoned in big letters on each side. Always gets a big wave as they go by.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

No they don't. Waving you through a road block and getting your emissions test is not the same as armed military boarding and searching your home at their pleasure.



mad_machine:2063897 said:


> jzk said:
> 
> 
> > You think the purpose of government is to inspect your property for your safety? Should they be able to inspect your car any time they please? Your house?
> ...


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Honestly.. from some of the boats I have been aboard.. they should have a mandatory Safety Inspection once a year. I have been aboard at least one speedboat I immediately got off of and refused to go out on. 

If they cannot do a mandatory inspection once a year.. then it is up to the USCG to do it randomly. I know you feel it is against our rights.. but I do not want to get sunk because some idiot is running a boat that should not even be afloat, let alone skimming across the water at me.

Also bothersome, in looking at some larger boats for sale.. I have seen more than a few sailboats with serious collision damage... like all but run over by a larger powerboat collision damage. While I will always fear the sea, I have known more people who have gotten killed or seriously hurt by other boaters than who drowned


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Find law has some interesting discussion regarding the difference between automobiles and vessels. Of note, Supreme Court rulings have only been based on checking documentation for customs purposes, which have nothing to do with police stops in inland lakes. As would apply in the OP's case, because he had a sticker, all paperwork would have been in order, so there would not be any reasonable expectation otherwise.

What else is interesting is that the setting up "road" blocks is stated to be impractical, however on the lake that I sail at, there is very limited access. There is only one marina with public entrance. Most likely any lake is that way.

The link is here:
Annotation 3 - Fourth Amendment - FindLaw


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

You saw a boat that you didn't think was safe, and you immediately got off????? You took your safety into your own hands! Good for you!!!!

The Federal Government was never designed to ensure your recreational watercraft safety.

Yes, it is against our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.



mad_machine said:


> Honestly.. from some of the boats I have been aboard.. they should have a mandatory Safety Inspection once a year. I have been aboard at least one speedboat I immediately got off of and refused to go out on.
> 
> If they cannot do a mandatory inspection once a year.. then it is up to the USCG to do it randomly. I know you feel it is against our rights.. but I do not want to get sunk because some idiot is running a boat that should not even be afloat, let alone skimming across the water at me.
> 
> Also bothersome, in looking at some larger boats for sale.. I have seen more than a few sailboats with serious collision damage... like all but run over by a larger powerboat collision damage. While I will always fear the sea, I have known more people who have gotten killed or seriously hurt by other boaters than who drowned


----------



## donjuanluis (Jun 24, 2013)

One of the reasons I think we have so many "bad" guys doing their stuff at their will is because enforcement law people and justice are too busy behind the "good" ones. May not apply to US, but it happens in South America.


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Excellent series of articles here: Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 | Sailfeed (it links to part 2,3,4).

Continues with some discussion of the contradiction between reasonable search and the Cost Guard's powers as granted by the Revenue Act of 1790.

Upshot: it ain't right, but it ain't changing tomorrow. The guys boarding you are well within the law, even if the law needs to be changed. The only comparable power (which the article allludes to) is the customs agents at the border, which has been a recent hot-button issue with searches of hard drive contents. Basically, the CG is always operating like a customs agent.

Interestingly, over a bunch of years in Toronto, I was never hassled or searched - local LEO on the water (never the CG) seemed only interested in stopping reckless powerboaters and jetskis. They were often tied up to the end of our dock on a Sunday.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Geeze, everyone, if you hate it so much, then ask your congressman to propose an amendment to 14 USC 89 to exempt pleasure craft, or some such. 

Or do a better job of explaining to judges why you shouldn't have to go to that effort, because the statute is unconstitutional and all the judges who have upheld it over the years, are wrong. Form an association to fund such a lawsuit then have one of your members file a declaratory judgement, or get some civil disobedience person to decline a boarding and defend his fine on constitutional grounds.

They do these boardings in part to train newer members on how it's done in "easy" boardings so they will have the experience and awareness when doing the more risky LE boardings offshore. So yes you're a guinea pig. I feel more of a threat from some of the weekend "yachtsmen" with too much (horse)power-to-brains ratio than I do from the Coast Guard or the Louisiana Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries or indeed the local parish sheriffs boats, so I don't begrudge the occasional boarding.

Full disclosure: I'm retired Coast Guard Reserve.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"because the statute is unconstitutional and all the judges who have upheld it over the years, are wrong."
Wouldn't be the first time the entire judicial system was reversed, Tom. You may recall, the courts allowed and enforced seizure of escaped slaves for many years, in most of the country. Then after that Lincoln fellow refused to allow a legal secession...somehow, all the logic and all the courts got reversed and slavery was no longer legal at all.
Or, something simple like voting. You used to be able to sell your vote outright. Now? Nope, they won't allow you to do anything except get unenforced promises from the candidates, and when the candidates break their promise...damn, the courts won't hold 'em up to it. 
What's a white male property owner to do, when the Congress goes and dilutes his vote by giving it to every damn citizen, even women (women!) and non-property owners? Who'd have thought the Fed could go and turn the world topsy-turvy that way?

Boats? Heck, it would be easier to throw out that pesky fourth amendment, than to just enforce it for the well-documented reasons it was written. If it bars the King's own men from searching my carriage on the King's Highway, so I can safely carry treasonous papers and illegal arms, it certainly protects my boat. Don't take no genius to figure that one out, it was explicitly written to ensure that rebellion could happen again. So, if there's some square grouper aboard? Surely, that can't be worse than carrying papers and silver to Colonel Washington, can it?

Personally, I'm baffled by why I can't just sell my vote outright. Instead of gambling on whether someone will pay me off or change his mind once he's elected.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I've only been boarded once in 60 years on the water by the CG, and that was while night fishing for tarpon in Key West Harbor next to the Navy piers. They were looking for drug smugglers, there was a young kid with a Remington 870 pointed at me, and he had his finger on the trigger. I calmly told him to take his damned finger off the trigger before he really does something stupid and point the damned gun in another direction. His CO, a chief bosun mate gave him the look of do it now, and he complied. 

It was obvious that two guys fishing for tarpon in Key West Harbor were definitely not drug smugglers, but they did have a drug sniffing dog go through the boat, then shook our hands and wished us luck fishing.

That was my only encounter with a CG boarding and that was 40 years ago,

Gary


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

It would have been interesting to see what the difference would have been if you had a firearm on board. 
My boat is my home, I know and understand the differences in the 4th amendment - and realize I have no protections from warrant less search and seizure (it's a trade off for living on a boat I just want to know what they say or do different when I tell them it's my full time residence, and yes, I'm armed (legally).


----------



## WGEwald (Jun 2, 2014)

These war stories are getting good.

"This is no ****. There I was, ass deep in grenade pins..."

On topic, nobody should tell you a VSC will get you out of a boarding.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

mad_machine said:


> (snip)Homes are a different matter. Unless it is a rental, there are "castle doctrines" that keep the police and such outside unless they have a warrant to come in


Not if your home is afloat.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

mad_machine said:


> Honestly.. from some of the boats I have been aboard.. they should have a mandatory Safety Inspection once a year. I have been aboard at least one speedboat I immediately got off of and refused to go out on.
> 
> If they cannot do a mandatory inspection once a year.. then it is up to the USCG to do it randomly. I know you feel it is against our rights.. but I do not want to get sunk because some idiot is running a boat that should not even be afloat, let alone skimming across the water at me.
> 
> Also bothersome, in looking at some larger boats for sale.. I have seen more than a few sailboats with serious collision damage... like all but run over by a larger powerboat collision damage. While I will always fear the sea, I have known more people who have gotten killed or seriously hurt by other boaters than who drowned


I'd bet a paycheck that none of those collisions were caused by missing or defective safety equipment, nor would they have been prevented by a VSC or recent CG boarding.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

In 1787 a bunch or mainly rich (or well-off) white male property owners got together and eventually wrote the Constitution. One can easily assume that if you had said to them "What about people who live on boats?" they would have said "What? People who are too poor to buy or rent land, can somehow afford to own a boat?" and I would suggest they could conceive of liveaboards very much in the way they could anticipate an Air Force. Which is to say, not at all. 

That did in fact cause problems, the courts eventually did rule that the Posse Commitatus Act did not anticipate an Air Force and could not be expanded to it, even though modernists would say "Well it's just another military service". But one that was not included in laws that specified "all" of the known services in the 1700s. Mainly, the Army and Navy.

That the courts have not said "a home is a home, and whether there is sand, stone, or water under the foundations, it is still a home" is simply a travesty. Folks can argue all they please, but the courts are wrong. A home is a home, no matter how ephemeral or squalid it may be. As are a man's "effects", be they a rucksack or a carriage or even...a boat.

Yeah, it is that simple.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

It is not just your home. It is your car and your person. But not your boat.



hellosailor said:


> In 1787 a bunch or mainly rich (or well-off) white male property owners got together and eventually wrote the Constitution. One can easily assume that if you had said to them "What about people who live on boats?" they would have said "What? People who are too poor to buy or rent land, can somehow afford to own a boat?" and I would suggest they could conceive of liveaboards very much in the way they could anticipate an Air Force. Which is to say, not at all.
> 
> That did in fact cause problems, the courts eventually did rule that the Posse Commitatus Act did not anticipate an Air Force and could not be expanded to it, even though modernists would say "Well it's just another military service". But one that was not included in laws that specified "all" of the known services in the 1700s. Mainly, the Army and Navy.
> 
> ...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Car and boat are both 'effects' and if you're going to protect the one, you have to protect the other. The fourth amendment doesn't list "cars" or "carriages", they are "effects". Just the same as the saddlebags on your horse. In fact, we call the rear section of a car "the trunk" because that's what the original storage area on a carriage was, a trunk stored under a seat, in the rear, or on the roof. 

Car, boat, motorcycle, saddlebag, pocketbook...all "effects" and not enumerated in any other way.

Reading The Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents and discussions from the revolutionary era pretty much ends all the arguments about what was meant, because they laid it out in detail.

Or perhaps the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that smartphones can no longer be searched without want or warrant. After all, smartphones weren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights either. And contrary to public opinion, they're not even phones, they're radios. As defined by the FCC, who have sole authority over them. Radios? Seen those in the Bill of Rights?

"Hey, Thomas, you know folks are going to talk over the aether some day."
'Oh, Benjamin, whatever did you put in your wine?!'


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

hellosailor said:


> In 1787 a bunch or mainly rich (or well-off) white male property owners got together and eventually wrote the Constitution. One can easily assume that if you had said to them "What about people who live on boats?" they would have said "What? People who are too poor to buy or rent land, can somehow afford to own a boat?" and I would suggest they could conceive of liveaboards very much in the way they could anticipate an Air Force. Which is to say, not at all.
> 
> That did in fact cause problems, the courts eventually did rule that the Posse Commitatus Act did not anticipate an Air Force and could not be expanded to it, even though modernists would say "Well it's just another military service". But one that was not included in laws that specified "all" of the known services in the 1700s. Mainly, the Army and Navy.
> 
> ...


In point of fact, when Ft. Lauderdale LEOs were boarding boats, whether the owners were aboard or not, with permission or not, under the guise of head/holding tank inspections, I contacted the ACLU as a home owner under attack. They were quick to jump in and the boardings promptly stopped.
At anchor, on a mooring and at a dock, the laws may not be the same as they are when a vessel underway. In this case at least, the illegal activities of the Florida LEOs were curtailed by the ALCU. Their stance was that without a complaint, in this case, there was no probable cause, hence the searches were without merit. This was however, before the American people gave away their constitutional rights in the name of security, under the Patriot Act. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Captain Nemo would be SO busted.

I found something new (to me) in the USCode. Apparently, all submarines must be documented or nationally flagged now, or else you're busted if you're caught on one. Go figure, Congress would get so persnickety over a little modern rumrunning.

46 U.S. Code § 70508 
- Operation of submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel without nationality

Current through Pub. L. 113-126. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In General.— An individual may not operate by any means or embark in any submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel that is without nationality and that is navigating or has navigated into, through, or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single country or a lateral limit of that country’s territorial sea with an adjacent country, with the intent to evade detection. 

(b) Evidence of Intent To Evade Detection.— In any civil enforcement proceeding for a violation of subsection (a), the presence of any of the indicia described in paragraph (1)(A), (E), (F), or (G), or in paragraph (4), (5), or (6), of section 70507 (b) may be considered, in the totality of the circumstances, to be prima facie evidence of intent to evade detection. 

(c) Defenses.— 
(1) In general.— It is a defense in any civil enforcement proceeding for a violation of subsection (a) that the submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel involved was, at the time of the violation— 
(A) a vessel of the United States or lawfully registered in a foreign nation as claimed by the master or individual in charge of the vessel when requested to make a claim by an officer of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law; 

(B) classed by and designed in accordance with the rules of a classification society; 

(C) lawfully operated in government-regulated or licensed activity, including commerce, research, or exploration; or 

(D) equipped with and using an operable automatic identification system, vessel monitoring system, or long range identification and tracking system. 

(2) Production of documents.— The defenses provided by this subsection are proved conclusively by the production of— 
(A) government documents evidencing the vessel’s nationality at the time of the offense, as provided in article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas; 

(B) a certificate of classification issued by the vessel’s classification society upon completion of relevant classification surveys and valid at the time of the offense; or 

(C) government documents evidencing licensure, regulation, or registration for research or exploration. 

(d) Civil Penalty.— A person violating this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Among those things I mentioned that concern me more than safety/equipment boardings by Coast Guard, State, or local. The worst kind of "boarding":

2 dead identified from weekend boat crash near Harsens Island | The Detroit News


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Captain Nemo would be SO busted.
> 
> I found something new (to me) in the USCode. Apparently, all submarines must be documented or nationally flagged now, or else you're busted if you're caught on one. Go figure, Congress would get so persnickety over a little modern rumrunning.
> 
> ...


I was recently reading about a local guy who was restoring a small submarine. Kind of silly little thing but looked like it could be kind of fun, and of course it was painted yellow. But around here I don't think you can see more than 2 feet. That would not be fun.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

So.you are ok.with an oppressive government because it is not as bad as being killed by a drunk boater?



nolatom:2067817 said:


> Among those things I mentioned that concern me more than safety/equipment boardings by Coast Guard, State, or local. The worst kind of "boarding":
> 
> 2 dead identified from weekend boat crash near Harsens Island | The Detroit News


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

jzk said:


> So.you are ok.with an oppressive government because it is not as bad as being killed by a drunk boater?


No, and I don't regard what I've seen in 55 years as being oppressive, as you evidently do. And I do see a risk in the 'free-fire zone" of (some) weekend boat operators on which the existence of some reasonable government oversight (shudder) might have a palliative effect.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

nolatom said:


> No, and I don't regard what I've seen in 55 years as being oppressive, as you evidently do. And I do see a risk in the 'free-fire zone" of (some) weekend boat operators on which the existence of some reasonable government oversight (shudder) might have a palliative effect.


How is it that we all manage just fine out here beyond the continental waters of the USA, using our own discretion and common sense, without the aid of the USCG (and/or local LEOs) and their boarding policies?
Drinking and dinghying back to our boats is common place with no life jackets in our dinks, rarely legal lights, no fire extinguishers, etc, and yet injuries, let alone fatalities are almost unheard of? Local high power boats zip by at all hours of the day and night, unlit, cargo ships and ferries that wouldn't pass an intelligent safety inspection, let alone the idiocy the USCG sometimes perceives as a safety inspection, ply the waters without grave problems. How is this all possible without the policing of the United States Coast Guard and local LEOs? It make you wonder, doesn't it?


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Beyond 3 or 12 miles the number of vessels (especially jetskis, runabouts), and of drunks, seems to drop way off.

Just sayin'..


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

...except at the MS coast islands, these days...

...and you're outside the USA culture, Capta. Different people.


----------



## rbh1515 (Jul 7, 2000)

I used to think the CG was a good and helpful agency. Now I could not disagree more. About 8 years ago I was out sailing on Lake Michigan with my wife, two daughters, and my parents in their late seventies. We had just finished sailing and had taken the sails down and started the engine. Here comes a very large CG vessel straight at us with the blue lights. They came along side us and with the waves they created almost banged up against my 28' sailboat. I personally had to organize tying the vessels together because of their ineptitude. I asked the purpose of this, and they said they were boarding for a spot inspection. I pointed out my CG Aux sticker indicating a successful inspection from a month ago. They said that the AUX were not CG, and it meant nothing! They were extremely rude. The funny thing is that I had been sailing for many years and never obtained a CG Aux inspection. This was the first (and last) year I would do this. I know the rules, and don't need someone else to double check me for no reason.
Here is the kicker. I had to pass all my life jackets over to be inspected. One guy came on the boat and wanted to go below. He told me to lift open the cover for the engine compartment. My engine was idling, and right on the front of the cover it says "Danger, do not open with the engine running". I pointed this out and told him if he wanted me to lift it I would need to shut down the engine.
These guys were a bunch of buffoons. They were rude, and had large black jack boots on that could have marked up my deck.
They did not practice safe boating techniques, and clearly almost put me in danger.
They found no violations.
Afterwards they sped at another boat to terrorize them.
In the future I will not stop my boat on the water for the CG. I have talked to others that said they have them meet them at the dock. That is what I will do. I recently checked with the CG, and they said that would be OK.
No other governmental agency can do this to you. IMO it is clearly an abuse. The traffic police don't pull you over for a spot check for no reason! Why the CG??
Most sailors I talk to have also lost confidence in the CG.
It is really too bad.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

This thread is getting away from the original intent and turning into "share your CG horror stories and anti-government feelings."

May I suggest that if you ever have an issue with any CG personnel, that you take names and report the actions that you felt were an issue to their sector? They are people, too. As in any organization there are bad apples and good apples. Complaining about it here does nothing but potentially cause unnecessary worry to new boaters.

If you continue, the posts will be culled and moved into Off-Off-Topic.


----------



## rbh1515 (Jul 7, 2000)

DRFerron said:


> This thread is getting away from the original intent and turning into "share your CG horror stories and anti-government feelings."
> 
> May I suggest that if you ever have an issue with any CG personnel, that you take names and report the actions that you felt were an issue to their sector? They are people, too. As in any organization there are bad apples and good apples. Complaining about it here does nothing but potentially cause unnecessary worry to new boaters.
> 
> If you continue, the posts will be culled and moved into Off-Off-Topic.


I did report the actions and it went no where. I still have the original boarding sheet. That is the problem. They are not accountable. No other agency regularly stops and harasses people like the CG.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

DRFerron said:


> If you continue, the posts will be culled and moved into Off-Off-Topic.


This is the second time you've threatened to move this thread. Seems like maybe you should make sure you are wearing your objective moderator hat, and not some other hat from another part of your life. I only see people sharing stories of boardings by various LE agencies, and discussing the legality of it. Not sure how that is not a perfectly legitimate discussion to be having here.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

rbh1515 said:


> I did report the actions and it went no where. I still have the original boarding sheet. That is the problem. They are not accountable. No other agency regularly stops and harasses people like the CG.


You need to sail in NJ/NY then. at Least the USCG is not out looking for issues to fine you. The SP and all the municipalities trying to pay for their gofast and water training are. I would rather deal with 10 CG boardings than a single Local Police one again


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

I agree with caberg.

This subject should not be an off-topic discussion. It's quite definitely sailing related and obviously many members here feel quite strongly about CG and LE boardings. In fact it crosses my mind when ever I see a CG, police, or constable approaching. There are so many law enforcement boats out where I sail that on some days they outnumber the pleasure boaters. 

I think this is an important issue and merits discussion. That being said.... your forum, your rules.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I have a friend who was at the helm in an offshore race late at night when a CG rib came out of nowhere and requested boarding. He refused the boarding and requested ID. The rib disappeared in the dark and came back with some additional ID which still did not satisfy him. Finally after somemore discussion he requested that the mother ship show her lights and that way he would be certain that this was indeed the CG. The ship complied and he said crew in the RIB could now board, but after all of this hassle they merely went on their way. This was pre 911 and I thought he was luckly that he didn't piss them off in his requests for ID.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

lancelot9898 said:


> I have a friend who was at the helm in an offshore race late at night when a CG rib came out of nowhere and requested boarding. He refused the boarding and requested ID. The rib disappeared in the dark and came back with some additional ID which still did not satisfy him. Finally after somemore discussion he requested that the mother ship show her lights and that way he would be certain that this was indeed the CG. The ship complied and he said crew in the RIB could now board, but after all of this hassle they merely went on their way. This was pre 911 and I thought he was luckly that he didn't piss them off in his requests for ID.


...and how would a VSC sticker be helpful(visable?) at night in this situation..just to keep on track with the intended thought behind this thread.

yes...we've been boarded(pre 911) and found our experience to be positive..but have been told by non-US citizen boating friends of contrary experiences.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Donna, while I, a retired Coast Guard reservist, may appear to be on the minority side here in taking a gentler view of their boarding and law enforcement activities regarding recreational vessels than many who have posted, I do believe we have stayed fairly true to the original topic (CG boardings and how not to have them) and have kept the discussion "within the 30-yard lines" in content and civility. 

'sides, I think we've got most of it up on the table now, so maybe let it run its course, we may be near the end of thread anyway (though I've guessed wrong before on that one), ha ha..


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

caberg said:


> This is the second time you've threatened to move this thread. Seems like maybe you should make sure you are wearing your objective moderator hat, and not some other hat from another part of your life. I only see people sharing stories of boardings by various LE agencies, and discussing the legality of it. Not sure how that is not a perfectly legitimate discussion to be having here.


I'm not. I'm responding to the members who reported the thread as being more in line with the PWRG forum when the anti-government (as opposed to anti-boarding) seeps in.

I agree that talking about boarding issues is valid for this forum.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Some of that could be the flash suppressed .223 rounds that make chopped mess out of the speed boats crashing by, outside of the jurisdiction of LEO's and USCG. 
The rest is likely just that the US news media only reports the sensational ferry sinkings, not the mundane everyday ones; nor do the report the 'drunk overboard' events unless it's some celeb during their 15 minutes of fame drunken vacation beach bash.



capta said:


> How is it that we all manage just fine out here beyond the continental waters of the USA, using our own discretion and common sense, without the aid of the USCG (and/or local LEOs) and their boarding policies?
> Drinking and dinghying back to our boats is common place with no life jackets in our dinks, rarely legal lights, no fire extinguishers, etc, and yet injuries, let alone fatalities are almost unheard of? Local high power boats zip by at all hours of the day and night, unlit, cargo ships and ferries that wouldn't pass an intelligent safety inspection, let alone the idiocy the USCG sometimes perceives as a safety inspection, ply the waters without grave problems. How is this all possible without the policing of the United States Coast Guard and local LEOs? It make you wonder, doesn't it?


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Hey Clayton

Sorry for not mentioning the sticker thing and straying from the thread topic.  Best to you and Leslie.


----------



## Dave_E (Aug 7, 2013)

SVAuspicious said:


> I seem to get boarded a lot. All but one have been in the middle Chesapeake Bay and all of those (eight? nine? something like that) have been USCG training exercises. I suspect my proximity to Curtis Bay and that I sail a lot at times there aren't a lot of other boats on the water contributes to it.
> 
> One of my favorites was a winter boarding while I was towing another boat into Baltimore. There were so many trainees they did three separate boarding parties. *grin* The coxswain (not a trainee) was an exemplary boat handler. I hope I am that good someday. The CO put someone on my helm (I was single-handing) who was also quite capable. We kept moving the whole time and there was no delay and only mild inconvenience.


This story almost sounds like they comondeered your boat for training. Could you have said "no thanks". That's like a cop stopping you and ordering you out of your car so he can use it for tarining with his partner in a chase around the block. 

Out of control. I have never been boarded. Stopped buy the fish cops for a look see overboard a couple times (but I was in my 14' skiff).


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Dave_E said:


> This story almost sounds like they comondeered your boat for training. Could you have said "no thanks". That's like a cop stopping you and ordering you out of your car so he can use it for tarining with his partner in a chase around the block.


Commandeering is a gross overstatement.

They came alongside. They made their issue very clear. Driving a sailboat towing another boat, singlehanded aboard each, I could certainly have played the safety card.

They had been out since dawn. They had boarded commercial ships at anchor, tugs and barges. They really wanted a recreational boat. They were polite, asked permission, and were accommodating. So was I. I had 45 minutes or more before I had to make any significant turns. They made regular Securite announcements on my behalf as we proceeded.

I looked on it as an interesting experience and an opportunity to give back to a country and its guardians who have given so much to me.

I wouldn't have hesitated to object if I felt at risk. The boathandling of the coxswain and the open approach of the CO made me feel we could proceed. They gave me time to open the lifeline gates and to put out a towel for them to wipe their feet. I didn't have to slow down or change course. There were no demands, only requests. I was good with it.


----------



## Dave_E (Aug 7, 2013)

SVAuspicious said:


> Commandeering is a gross overstatement.
> 
> They came alongside. They made their issue very clear. Driving a sailboat towing another boat, singlehanded aboard each, I could certainly have played the safety card.
> 
> ...


I'm good with that. I'm really good with the fact you weighed everything before allowing things to proceed (as every skipper should).


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

lancelot9898 said:


> Hey Clayton
> 
> Sorry for not mentioning the sticker thing and straying from the thread topic.  Best to you and Leslie.


Thanks Dee,

Les has been very busy traveling.. You still have 'J Lizzy'? Best to Jeanne.

Clay
s/v 'Tango

(beware of communication 'experts' who can't communicate)


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

BTY I just stumbled on this on from Coast Guard Auxiliary. Note the last line:


> Boats that pass the examination are awarded a distinctive VSC Decal that alerts the Coast Guard, Harbor Patrol, and other law-enforcement agencies that your boat was found to be in full compliance with all Federal and State boating laws. Frequently, such agencies will not detain or board boats displaying a current-year decal that are otherwise operating safely.


http://wow.uscgaux.info/content.php?unit=v-dept


----------



## northoceanbeach (Mar 23, 2008)

kellysails said:


> The VSC inspection was surprisingly thorough. Two them spent well over an hour going through my boat. Probably much deeper than an actual CG boarding, maybe.


I really don't want anyone digging around in my boat, especially not for an hour. I think I'm smart enough to figure out what safety gear I need.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"smart enough "
I don't see the VSC as having much to do with smarts. Rather, it is a matter of having an inspection done _at your convenience_, which may prevent an _inconvenient _random boarding. And if there are any regulation changes or subtleties that the average boater might miss (smarts don't count a lot versus how an administrative agency may misinterpret their own code), again, this is a convenient way to find out about what the locals want. Not to mention, free.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Gotta disagree with ya hellosailor....it is not free....I pay for it with my tax dollars.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

northoceanbeach said:


> I really don't want anyone digging around in my boat, especially not for an hour. I think I'm smart enough to figure out what safety gear I need.


NOB, they don't "dig around in your boat." They sit in your cockpit or stand on the dock next to your boat if you don't want them on board, have a checklist and they ask you to show them the 10 or however many items it is on it. If you go down to your Vberth, remove your cushions and dig into the locker underneath to retrieve lifejackets, they should tell you that they are not "readily accessible" there and should be closer to the cockpit.

It isn't intrusive.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

AKscooter said:


> Gotta disagree with ya hellosailor....it is not free....I pay for it with my tax dollars.


If you get a VSC from the CG Auxiliary, it is not paid for from your tax dollars. The only time we get reimbursed from the Coast Guard is for expenses incurred when we're on CG-authorized patrols using our own boats and SAR operations using our own boats.

While the Auxilliary is part of "Team Coast Guard" the money brought in by the public education classes, private donations, etc. funds boating safety activities.

Boating safety, which includes the classes and VSC, are not reimbursable by the CG. If I spend money on visual aids/props/whatever to use in my classes and I would like to be reimbursed, the money comes from my flotilla, not the regular Coast Guard.

We pay for our own uniforms and anything associated with volunteering (gas, food, etc. outside of the patrols mentioned above) and it is tax deductible, but not reimbursable. When we conduct member training, if we want to print the training material to hand out, the flotilla pays for it if they have the funds or the individual pays for it, again, not reimbursable by the CG.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

AK-
As DR said, those are unpaid volunteers doing the VSC. I have no idea if any of the USCGAux funding comes from tax dollars, but you are looking at fixed versus incremental costs. The fixed costs are there regardless. The added incremental cost of having your VSC done? Is zero. So yes, it is free to you, unless you think your choice of getting a VSC is going to allow *all* funding to be turned off.
The crews will be on their boats, inspecting something, patrolling something, doing something and costing the same thing to whatever funds them, regardless of your VSC. And if you volunteer to join the USCGAux? You even get to buy and pay for your own uniforms and laundry, out of your own pocket. Unca Sam doesn't pay for any of that. he's pretty miserly with what he pays the USCG itself, just ask any Coastie whether s/he was able to get housing "on base" or a housing allowance that actually paid local rents.
And when you hail the USCG itself on the radio? Last time I checked, they were still soliciting volunteer watchstandarders, civilians to man the radios free of charge so the boat crews could actually crew the boats. Those watchstanders also had to join the USCGAux and pay for their own uniforms.
So there are actually volunteers staffing some of the "desks" that you think your tax dollars are paying for. And which they *should* pay for.


----------



## AKscooter (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks for the info......I am extremely aware of how the US "treats" the soldiers, sailors and airmen. I am also extremely aware how the US rewards its "contracted services". Frankly most of the debate is over the structure and purpose of the boardings themselves. Even with a VCS sticker you can and probably will at some point get boarded. As to the "depth" of their inspection it depends on their level of suspicion, your "type" of boat, where you are and what their training objectives are. I have had a few different types, some as they have stated are simply safety inspections...show me show me type and others, well lets say they can and will core the hull if they think it is necessary. Frankly, I do not give the appearance of a scallywag, and generally am treated with in a professional and competent manner. Alas, there has been other times and their dark side emerges. Why? Who knows,as I do not change but they did. Frankly at dock inspections are simply the best place to conduct inspections. For several reasons, one it is cheaper,(they do not need a boat), it is safer, my attention is not on the CG, their boat, my boat, my passengers etc. I can concentrate fully at the task at hand.....Another reason is that if I do not have the equipment on board I cannot go out. Like Captain Ron Rico says, if anything is gonna happen it is gonna happen out there..... So if all you folks who have hard ons about safety and the "rights" of the Coasties to conduct involuntary inspections of your homes, be they floating or drydock, push for mandatory departure inspections. To totally ensure your "safety" "For the kids" or whatever tripe they are feeding you these days. I am sure the "volunteers" are more than happy to shine somebodies shoes.


----------

