|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Bob Peterson (no email)
Date: Wed Feb 01 2006 - 23:11:26 EST
Dale, good question. I can shed a little light, but not the entire answer.
Over the years I have belonged to the U.S. Power Squadrons and the U.S.
Coast Guard Auxiliary. In fact, this is my 32nd year in the Auxiliary. I
was a member for several years before I learned that, at least at that time,
the Auxiliary had an official policy stance AGAINST mandatory licensing!
Now how, I wondered, could an organization dedicated to boating safety, and
one whose members spent thousands of hours each year teaching basic boating
safety courses, be AGAINST mandatory boating safety education and licensing?
I can honestly state that I've never received an explanation that convinced
me that was a useful objective. People trot out the "freedom of the seas"
issue, which is bunk since skippers of commercial craft of all sizes must
have mandatory licenses.
The only explanation which appears, at first blush, to have some merit is
the observation that mandatory boating safety education and licensing could
result in nothing more than an tax boost for the state! And the related
objection is that "auto motorist licensing does not eliminate car
accidents"; which is true. But the point remains, as has been mentioned by
others on this thread, that an educated boater will have a better chance of
an accident- or incident-free day on the water.
I am active in on-the-water operations in the Auxiliary and most weekends
give some hapless boater a tow back to a nearby marina or dock where he can
purchase fuel, top off the batteries, add water to his fresh-water cooling
system, etc., etc. If the situation aboard the other boat is dangerous, we
will often transfer their crew (family) aboard our boat, and that provides a
chance to ask the skipper about his problems. The list is endless, and
mostly entirely preventable. One guy tried to convince me that because most
marine gas V-8 engines are automotive in origin, there should be no reason
why he had to give his boat's engine any more concern than he did when
jumping into the family car! Honestly, he really believed that.
Then there are all the non-mechanical issues that develop out on the water.
Again, I honestly encountered a guy who believed that the tides were like
the skies: sometimes you got decent, dry, comfortable weather and sometimes
it was nasty out there; he felt the tides were just as random! I told him
about the freebie tide books at most bait shops and similar marine-oriented
businesses and he was dumbfounded to learn that the tides were not only
predictable but that someone had actually published tide charts that would
tell you the tide heights and times of each day!
Then there was the guy who proudly showed me his depth-sounder that told him
how much anchor line to let out. Anchor in 100' of water, pay out 100' of
anchor line!! To make sure the anchor was in contact with the bottom!
The examples go on and on. I honestly don't know if the Auxiliary's
official policy stance is opposed to mandatory education and licensing or
not. Nor do I care. It is needed, it should be enacted. It will save
lives and property. It will cut down on Search and Rescue cases, which is
perhaps why some ambulance-chasing Auxiliary coxswains oppose mandatory
licensing. But surely that argument isn't valid.
Bob Peterson
"Lopaka Nane"
47' Lien Hwa CPMY
San Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Dale
Klahn
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: T&T: Licenses (was Bayliners)
Ok. So I'm curious as to why anyone in "our" situation would be against
Licenses? I've always wondered "why not?".
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To unsubscribe send email to
with the word
UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.
Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.
|