I know that this is not a political forum (is it?). If we let the government do what THEY think is good for us.....well, we all know what is going to happen. We do not need them to regulate anything else. I have this idea that everytime they pass another law they must remove two other laws. There is an easy ways to contact them. You can contact your reps through National Write Your Congressman. They can be contacted by going to (www.nwyc.com). Then all you need to do is key in your State and Zip code and indicate your senator or represenative. We should contact them on any and all issues that concern us. Regardless of how insignificant an issue, if they do not know what you are thinking they are going to listen to some *other* fringe group and vote with them. The squeeky wheel does get greased. Maybe Phil Herring will add this to the links page if he feels compelled for us to voice our opinions.
Let'em know HOW you feel.
- Thread starter Steve Dion
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jay Hill
HOW to Get Things Done
I agree with Steve, without your input, the government is run by people who fashion themselves as professionals. Professional Politician? Revelation or oxymoron? Your call. Anyway, as Steve suggested, we should all put in our two cents worth to the politicians. Since we have a great thread going on PFDs at the moment, this would be a great way for us to "practice" (what we preach?) I've written our state government on several occassions and found that so few people write in that any input is heavily considered. That may be different on a national basis of course. When you do write to your representative, please be careful to tone down your comments so that your entire message is read. They will take a "raving" and immediately throw it away in the "not thinking clearly" category of trash cans, thus making your input a waste of your time. For all input, it is better to summarize the problem/issue, state clearly how it affects you, your group, your interests, your state/country/constitution, and most importantly, make constructive suggestions on how you think the problem or issue should be handled/resolved/dealt with. Politicians are masters at taking someone else's idea and making it their own "lookie what I did" campaign. What they select, as Steve mentioned, is the largest number of "inputs". Let them take your constructive suggestions and make them their own, fine, at least something is getting done, if, and only if, you actually made a suggestion. No input? No rights to complain about the outcome. (Well, of course, you have the right to complain, but I bet it would be with less conviction than if you'd done your best to provide input. You know what I mean.) So, here's a letter to the representative. Subject: Federal Regulations for Personal Flotation Devices Dear Mr. Representative, I am writing in regard to recent news about the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) research into legal requirements for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs). The USCG currently has federal regulations requiring PFDs be onboard and available to users, but has begun research making the actual wearing of a PFD mandatory by all persons onboard a vessel. As laws and regulations are certainly difficult to write when there are so many circumstances that effect and are affected by vagueness or lack of detail in the laws/regulations, I wish to submit suggestions based on experience and data. I am an active Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Boater Education Instructor and teach persons of all ages basic boating regulations. I have been an avid boater for more than 20 years and have assisted in many rescue and recovery operations on inland, coastal, and foreign waters. I have operated, crewed on, or skippered recreational vessels from 10 to 55 feet, commercials vessels to 408 feet, and several military craft. I currently own and operate sailing vessels from 24 to 31 feet in a commercial venture. To help our representatives better understand the need for protection for boaters, I would like to suggest the following: 1) When reviewing data submitted by law enforcement and USCG entities, please consider the types of vessels on which accidents or deaths occur in addition to the number of incidents. You will notice a large percentage of reported data indicates accidents occur on similar type vessels. 2) When considering legislation for mandatory use of PFDs, please consider the type of vessels involved, their stability factors, age of users, and possibly even local conditions. For example, many states have regulations requiring children under the age of 13 to wear a PFD within 100 feet of a significantly large body of water. Persons under 18 are required to wear PFDs on Personal Water Craft (PWCs) at all times. This usually ends the requirements for mandatory wear. However, the vast majority of accidents occur on runabouts under 20 feet, PWCs, Jonboats, canoes, kayaks, small catamarans, and other similar unstable vessels. Runabouts over 20 feet, cabin cruisers, and keel-type sailing vessels are quite stable and seldom have problems with persons falling overboard underway. My suggestion, then, is to write mandatory PFD legislation according to the type of vessel rather than simply on age. All persons operating or onboard a runabout under 20 feet, a PWC, Jonboat, canoe, kayak, catamaran under 21', and other similar unstable vessels should be required to wear a proper PFD when not connected directly to a dock or pier. Persons under 13 should wear a PFD when on board any vessel. Persons operating large or highly stable vessels should wear PFDs when heavy weather conditions make it prudent. 3) Consider writing legislation to require either a boater's license or a boater education program before operation of any vessel is allowed. I realize that even driver's licensing is not completely foolproof; many automobiles are being operated by unlicensed drivers, however, making a licensing or education program mandatory for all persons certainly increases the awareness of boating laws, will require a minimum amount of education for all operators, and could greatly reduce the number of accidents on our nation's waters. 4) Please consider that while boating is just as dangerous as driving, it is still a form of recreation. Many people are drawn to the relaxation provided by a day, evening, or lifetime on the water. Relaxation, however, can be greatly reduced or even eliminated if one must wear a PFD at all times. The smaller, unstable vessels listed above are also those used for short-term trips, sports, or "outings" such as a race, fishing, hunting, short dinner cruises, etc. where persons are not on the vessel for more than a few hours at a time. Larger vessels, on the other hand, are not only designed for extended cruising, they are generally used for that very purpose. Persons operating these types of vessels are typically onboard more often and tend to stay onboard for a matter of days instead of hours. Not only does this make one more experienced moving around a vessel, it makes them less likely to be in a typical incident situation such as racing, high speed, drifting, etc. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me at the address listed below. End of Letter----------------------- Introduce yourself, tell why you're writing, give your level of experience so they know you know what you're talking about, and brief suggestions for problem resolution. I suggest you give them a means of contacting you. They will call you up, mention your letter, talk about it briefly, then ask for a campaign contribution. Fine, let them ask. At least you got to get in your two cents over the phone or in a personal letter. I'll probably edit the letter above a couple of times before I send it, but it's a first draft. Any comments?
I agree with Steve, without your input, the government is run by people who fashion themselves as professionals. Professional Politician? Revelation or oxymoron? Your call. Anyway, as Steve suggested, we should all put in our two cents worth to the politicians. Since we have a great thread going on PFDs at the moment, this would be a great way for us to "practice" (what we preach?) I've written our state government on several occassions and found that so few people write in that any input is heavily considered. That may be different on a national basis of course. When you do write to your representative, please be careful to tone down your comments so that your entire message is read. They will take a "raving" and immediately throw it away in the "not thinking clearly" category of trash cans, thus making your input a waste of your time. For all input, it is better to summarize the problem/issue, state clearly how it affects you, your group, your interests, your state/country/constitution, and most importantly, make constructive suggestions on how you think the problem or issue should be handled/resolved/dealt with. Politicians are masters at taking someone else's idea and making it their own "lookie what I did" campaign. What they select, as Steve mentioned, is the largest number of "inputs". Let them take your constructive suggestions and make them their own, fine, at least something is getting done, if, and only if, you actually made a suggestion. No input? No rights to complain about the outcome. (Well, of course, you have the right to complain, but I bet it would be with less conviction than if you'd done your best to provide input. You know what I mean.) So, here's a letter to the representative. Subject: Federal Regulations for Personal Flotation Devices Dear Mr. Representative, I am writing in regard to recent news about the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) research into legal requirements for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs). The USCG currently has federal regulations requiring PFDs be onboard and available to users, but has begun research making the actual wearing of a PFD mandatory by all persons onboard a vessel. As laws and regulations are certainly difficult to write when there are so many circumstances that effect and are affected by vagueness or lack of detail in the laws/regulations, I wish to submit suggestions based on experience and data. I am an active Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Boater Education Instructor and teach persons of all ages basic boating regulations. I have been an avid boater for more than 20 years and have assisted in many rescue and recovery operations on inland, coastal, and foreign waters. I have operated, crewed on, or skippered recreational vessels from 10 to 55 feet, commercials vessels to 408 feet, and several military craft. I currently own and operate sailing vessels from 24 to 31 feet in a commercial venture. To help our representatives better understand the need for protection for boaters, I would like to suggest the following: 1) When reviewing data submitted by law enforcement and USCG entities, please consider the types of vessels on which accidents or deaths occur in addition to the number of incidents. You will notice a large percentage of reported data indicates accidents occur on similar type vessels. 2) When considering legislation for mandatory use of PFDs, please consider the type of vessels involved, their stability factors, age of users, and possibly even local conditions. For example, many states have regulations requiring children under the age of 13 to wear a PFD within 100 feet of a significantly large body of water. Persons under 18 are required to wear PFDs on Personal Water Craft (PWCs) at all times. This usually ends the requirements for mandatory wear. However, the vast majority of accidents occur on runabouts under 20 feet, PWCs, Jonboats, canoes, kayaks, small catamarans, and other similar unstable vessels. Runabouts over 20 feet, cabin cruisers, and keel-type sailing vessels are quite stable and seldom have problems with persons falling overboard underway. My suggestion, then, is to write mandatory PFD legislation according to the type of vessel rather than simply on age. All persons operating or onboard a runabout under 20 feet, a PWC, Jonboat, canoe, kayak, catamaran under 21', and other similar unstable vessels should be required to wear a proper PFD when not connected directly to a dock or pier. Persons under 13 should wear a PFD when on board any vessel. Persons operating large or highly stable vessels should wear PFDs when heavy weather conditions make it prudent. 3) Consider writing legislation to require either a boater's license or a boater education program before operation of any vessel is allowed. I realize that even driver's licensing is not completely foolproof; many automobiles are being operated by unlicensed drivers, however, making a licensing or education program mandatory for all persons certainly increases the awareness of boating laws, will require a minimum amount of education for all operators, and could greatly reduce the number of accidents on our nation's waters. 4) Please consider that while boating is just as dangerous as driving, it is still a form of recreation. Many people are drawn to the relaxation provided by a day, evening, or lifetime on the water. Relaxation, however, can be greatly reduced or even eliminated if one must wear a PFD at all times. The smaller, unstable vessels listed above are also those used for short-term trips, sports, or "outings" such as a race, fishing, hunting, short dinner cruises, etc. where persons are not on the vessel for more than a few hours at a time. Larger vessels, on the other hand, are not only designed for extended cruising, they are generally used for that very purpose. Persons operating these types of vessels are typically onboard more often and tend to stay onboard for a matter of days instead of hours. Not only does this make one more experienced moving around a vessel, it makes them less likely to be in a typical incident situation such as racing, high speed, drifting, etc. Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me at the address listed below. End of Letter----------------------- Introduce yourself, tell why you're writing, give your level of experience so they know you know what you're talking about, and brief suggestions for problem resolution. I suggest you give them a means of contacting you. They will call you up, mention your letter, talk about it briefly, then ask for a campaign contribution. Fine, let them ask. At least you got to get in your two cents over the phone or in a personal letter. I'll probably edit the letter above a couple of times before I send it, but it's a first draft. Any comments?
G
Greg Stebbins
PAC's if available are effective
Does anyone know if Hunter Marine has a stand-alone PAC or is part of a group PAC? It would be good to tap in if possable. If you want to get a political message across to our leadership, money/lobbying speaks very clearly.
Does anyone know if Hunter Marine has a stand-alone PAC or is part of a group PAC? It would be good to tap in if possable. If you want to get a political message across to our leadership, money/lobbying speaks very clearly.
J
Jay Hill
More on PACs
Hunter does have a Cruise-PAC. You can buy it as an individual or if your partners in the boat so choose, as a group. Unfotunately, the Cruise-PAC does not come with a tap, however, as you mentioned, money speaks clearly if given to the leadership in the lobby. Or something like that.
Hunter does have a Cruise-PAC. You can buy it as an individual or if your partners in the boat so choose, as a group. Unfotunately, the Cruise-PAC does not come with a tap, however, as you mentioned, money speaks clearly if given to the leadership in the lobby. Or something like that.
G
Greg Stebbins
PAC=Political Action Comminity
It's a fund built from contributions. The funds come from employees and corporations usually. It was meant to counteract the influence of special interest groups by becoming one. The money is used to maintain a Lobbyist(s) in Washington as well as supplying bribes or contributions to politicians.
It's a fund built from contributions. The funds come from employees and corporations usually. It was meant to counteract the influence of special interest groups by becoming one. The money is used to maintain a Lobbyist(s) in Washington as well as supplying bribes or contributions to politicians.
D
Dakota Jim Russell
J
Jim Kolstoe
to Jay Hill
Jay, Some thoughts on your letter and writing to politicians and other decision-makers. 1) Brevity counts. 2) Redundency is not brief. 3) Do their work for them. Along with recommending policy, provide them with suggested language to impliment that policy, possibily as an attachment. 4) Your basic approach is good, let them know who you are and why they should pay attention to, and rely on, your ideas. Let them have the credit for taking the ball and running with it, but let them know you are willing to support them doing it. And most certainly, present yourself as calm and rational. 5) The best persuasive argement is not an argument, but education about why you are right. Your letter makes a good start on this. 6) Most editing, in my experience, is a process of reduction - getting rid of verbage and extraneous ideas. In general, I like your letter, although it seems overlong for a politican's attention span. Jim Kolstoe, h23 Kara's Boo
Jay, Some thoughts on your letter and writing to politicians and other decision-makers. 1) Brevity counts. 2) Redundency is not brief. 3) Do their work for them. Along with recommending policy, provide them with suggested language to impliment that policy, possibily as an attachment. 4) Your basic approach is good, let them know who you are and why they should pay attention to, and rely on, your ideas. Let them have the credit for taking the ball and running with it, but let them know you are willing to support them doing it. And most certainly, present yourself as calm and rational. 5) The best persuasive argement is not an argument, but education about why you are right. Your letter makes a good start on this. 6) Most editing, in my experience, is a process of reduction - getting rid of verbage and extraneous ideas. In general, I like your letter, although it seems overlong for a politican's attention span. Jim Kolstoe, h23 Kara's Boo
J
Jay Hill
G
Greg Stebbins
J
Jay Hill
None thankfully
I do not see any weather causing problems with PFD legislation unless they take that into consideration when writing some ridiculous law. But since that's NOT what you meant, no, no damage at all over here. The hail here at the marina was only marble size. When it got into Ft. Worth it was 3" in diameter. Saw some of the tornado destruction today. It was a little one, but still, two people killed, four injured. Lake is up 1.27" (yippeeeee!!) Hopefully we'll get another couple of feet of rain this month. We need it bad.
I do not see any weather causing problems with PFD legislation unless they take that into consideration when writing some ridiculous law. But since that's NOT what you meant, no, no damage at all over here. The hail here at the marina was only marble size. When it got into Ft. Worth it was 3" in diameter. Saw some of the tornado destruction today. It was a little one, but still, two people killed, four injured. Lake is up 1.27" (yippeeeee!!) Hopefully we'll get another couple of feet of rain this month. We need it bad.
S
Sam Kurtz
Be Careful What You Wish For
Those of you calling for the licensing of pleasure craft who do you propose to do the licensing? The Coast Guard? They are a little busy as it is and what are the folks in the square states going to do? I am not sure there is a Coast Guard presence there and if there is it will be a long way away from most of the folks out there. The state Departments of Fish and Game, Marine Resources or whatever they are called wherever you live, I would bet they are already very busy as well, enforcing laws that are already on the books. The Coast Guard Auxiliary or the US Power Squadrons these are not government organizations and should not be tasked with a governmental function and again there are a lot of locations that do not have one of these organizations nearby. Now to go along with the authority to grant a license they are going to need additional people to do all of the work and they are not going to work for free. So we have to either raise taxes in addition to the license fee or cut back on another service. Which one should we cut back on? Search and Rescue? Aids to Navigation? Law Enforcement? You pick one. Those bastard politicians will likely raise the taxes put a huge fee on the license (boat owners are all rich ain’t they?) and cut services to boot. I pay enough damn taxes and the freaking government is already way too intrusive in my life. If you want a government that fiddles with every aspect of your life move to someplace that has one, do not encourage the sons of bitches here that are already trying to get their fingers into every aspect of my life.
Those of you calling for the licensing of pleasure craft who do you propose to do the licensing? The Coast Guard? They are a little busy as it is and what are the folks in the square states going to do? I am not sure there is a Coast Guard presence there and if there is it will be a long way away from most of the folks out there. The state Departments of Fish and Game, Marine Resources or whatever they are called wherever you live, I would bet they are already very busy as well, enforcing laws that are already on the books. The Coast Guard Auxiliary or the US Power Squadrons these are not government organizations and should not be tasked with a governmental function and again there are a lot of locations that do not have one of these organizations nearby. Now to go along with the authority to grant a license they are going to need additional people to do all of the work and they are not going to work for free. So we have to either raise taxes in addition to the license fee or cut back on another service. Which one should we cut back on? Search and Rescue? Aids to Navigation? Law Enforcement? You pick one. Those bastard politicians will likely raise the taxes put a huge fee on the license (boat owners are all rich ain’t they?) and cut services to boot. I pay enough damn taxes and the freaking government is already way too intrusive in my life. If you want a government that fiddles with every aspect of your life move to someplace that has one, do not encourage the sons of bitches here that are already trying to get their fingers into every aspect of my life.
J
Jay Hill
As With Driver's Licensing...
...each state Department of Public Safety (or your state's equivalent) should handle recreational boater's licensing. No federal funding required and since the states already have the licensing "programs" in place it's a matter of adding a "type". Yeah, probably require more people to run it, but I think it's worth it. I agree though, that this should NOT be a federally run program. It would be so screwed up it wouldn't be good for anybody??????
...each state Department of Public Safety (or your state's equivalent) should handle recreational boater's licensing. No federal funding required and since the states already have the licensing "programs" in place it's a matter of adding a "type". Yeah, probably require more people to run it, but I think it's worth it. I agree though, that this should NOT be a federally run program. It would be so screwed up it wouldn't be good for anybody??????
R
Rick Webb
How will they do it?
Are you talking about an additional endorsement on your license? While DPS has jurisdiction they are not the primary agency enforcing boating regulations are they? How are they going to administer the "driving" portion of the test? Even then I see lots of people out there driving who I cannot beleive passed a test or perhaps they do not have one at all. How is this going to be different on the water than on the roads? It looks just like another way for the government, federal, state, municipal, whomever to get their hands in my pockets. Why don't we just have better enforcement of the laws that are already out there? Maybe we could get a hotline number like they have for drunk drivers so we just call from our cell phone and make a complaint. Or go see your precincts Justice of the Peace and get sworn in so that you can serve a citation. You might have a hard time catching that guy on the PWC on your sailboat though. In that case just shoot him.
Are you talking about an additional endorsement on your license? While DPS has jurisdiction they are not the primary agency enforcing boating regulations are they? How are they going to administer the "driving" portion of the test? Even then I see lots of people out there driving who I cannot beleive passed a test or perhaps they do not have one at all. How is this going to be different on the water than on the roads? It looks just like another way for the government, federal, state, municipal, whomever to get their hands in my pockets. Why don't we just have better enforcement of the laws that are already out there? Maybe we could get a hotline number like they have for drunk drivers so we just call from our cell phone and make a complaint. Or go see your precincts Justice of the Peace and get sworn in so that you can serve a citation. You might have a hard time catching that guy on the PWC on your sailboat though. In that case just shoot him.
Boat licensing?
Now Jay I am usually in sync with your views buttttt. Drivers licenses do not prevent accidents. What good is a boaters license going to do? Oh yes, the state/feds will make money and add another layer to the system but will people be able to operate a boat any better? I doubt it very much. They may remember something from a test, but will the be able to operate the craft better because they took a test? NO NO NO! Now back to were this original post came from (PWC). It may be helpful if young boaters were required to have some instruction before they get on these rockets and they could learn to operate them in a safe and prudent manner (they may even instill the idea to respect others). As far as "adult" operator licenses, I can see it now. You take 4-5 friends out on your boat (and everyone wants to take the wheel). "Hey Jay can we take the wheel?" "Do you have a license to operate a sail boat?" "No, but I have one for a 16' ski boat." "Sorry!" If you are the only licensed operator aboard you cannot go below and use the head or get a drink. This idea sucks, Jay. Now we are going to talk about boarding your boat to inspect your license. This is going to open another can of worms. Everyone complains about the Coasties boarding your boat for NOTHING. Now we are going to have "Fish and Game", "Sheriff", "Coasties" etc. able to board our boats to determine if we have operator licenses. Boating requires experience and common sense. Neither of these can be learned by taking a test. Experience is always the best teacher. Regardless if it is on-the-job or professional training, you have got to experience the situations in the real world to know what to do. OK Jay your rebuttal. PS: In case you did not realize it, I hate unnecessary governmental rules/control.
Now Jay I am usually in sync with your views buttttt. Drivers licenses do not prevent accidents. What good is a boaters license going to do? Oh yes, the state/feds will make money and add another layer to the system but will people be able to operate a boat any better? I doubt it very much. They may remember something from a test, but will the be able to operate the craft better because they took a test? NO NO NO! Now back to were this original post came from (PWC). It may be helpful if young boaters were required to have some instruction before they get on these rockets and they could learn to operate them in a safe and prudent manner (they may even instill the idea to respect others). As far as "adult" operator licenses, I can see it now. You take 4-5 friends out on your boat (and everyone wants to take the wheel). "Hey Jay can we take the wheel?" "Do you have a license to operate a sail boat?" "No, but I have one for a 16' ski boat." "Sorry!" If you are the only licensed operator aboard you cannot go below and use the head or get a drink. This idea sucks, Jay. Now we are going to talk about boarding your boat to inspect your license. This is going to open another can of worms. Everyone complains about the Coasties boarding your boat for NOTHING. Now we are going to have "Fish and Game", "Sheriff", "Coasties" etc. able to board our boats to determine if we have operator licenses. Boating requires experience and common sense. Neither of these can be learned by taking a test. Experience is always the best teacher. Regardless if it is on-the-job or professional training, you have got to experience the situations in the real world to know what to do. OK Jay your rebuttal. PS: In case you did not realize it, I hate unnecessary governmental rules/control.
B
Bob Zolczer
Licensing may not be that bad
In CT, we have a mandatory safe boating class, which covers safety and rules of the road. A written test is required. There is a separate class for PWC's. If nothing else, it ensures that at one point, everyone driving a boat knew the rules of the road and a little safety. It was phased in over a few years and was relatively painless.
In CT, we have a mandatory safe boating class, which covers safety and rules of the road. A written test is required. There is a separate class for PWC's. If nothing else, it ensures that at one point, everyone driving a boat knew the rules of the road and a little safety. It was phased in over a few years and was relatively painless.
J
Jay Hill
All Good Points...
Back from a great weekend of foul weather, the kind that makes you wonder if you really love this sailing stuff or if you're full of (**)it. I am, HOWever, pleased to report, that 5 inches of rain, 2 gales, 1 tornado, and a couple of near-miss lightning strikes in two days did not leave any damage on a 1983 Catalina 30. Anyway, just wanted to respond to Steve. You're right, operator's licensing would keep other folks from driving your boat while underway. Didn't think of that one, but it would be beneficial in some cases when you find out that a friend that "used to own a ski boat" doesn't know crap about safety, rules of the road, or how to operate a vessel under power. For those others, yep, it would be inconvenient. I'll have to think a bit on that one. OTOH, I disagree with you on the "driver's licenses do not prevent accidents" statement. I think they do, but I am basing it on TX licensing requirements. To get a license, you must complete a training course, take a written test, take an eye test, and take a DRIVING test. If you cannot drive and obey the rules of the road, you don't get the license. Now, does having a license make one safe or instantly possess common sense? Of course not, but to get the license requires some practice driving, knowledge of signs (stop, yield, no passing zone, do not enter, one way, etc.), traffic separation schemes (stay on the right lane, no passing on the right, double stripe in middle of road, passing lanes, slower traffic keep right, etc.), and a good working knowledge of how to drive the vehicle (parallel park, forward, reverse, brakes, turns (with proper signalling), keeping a watchful eye, etc, etc). So, let's say you handed a licensing test to a 12 year old that was a really good reader, but had never been in a car. The test would definitely let the 12 year old know what he did not know about driving. Could the 12 year old pass the driving test? No, I expect not. Take a 25 year old that had never been in a car (OK, that's not likely, but stay with me) and do the same thing. Could they pass the written and driving test? No, I think not. The same applies to boats; operators' licensing would simply make sure there is a minimum of training and/or knowledge possessed by the operator before the operator is allowed to drive/sail. My point? When a person without that experience you spoke of (and I partially agree with that issue) launches a boat and takes off, they DO NOT know what they don't know. Uh....they do not know what knowledge they are missing. Yeah, that's it. They may have no idea what dangers lie ahead or the proper way to stay out of the way or "stand-on". Having some minimum level of training required will keep more people safe and, IMHO, reduce accidents. Hopefully, the training/licensing program would contain some information on etiquette such as "It's really, really rude to cut a giant wake in front of a slow-moving sailboat. You've got the entire friggin' ocean to navigate in and you're doing 25 knots anyway, you should just go astern." or other such things that make sailing better. I should probably put this one in the Funny Stories section, but I recent heard at a waterfront bar, that "the fastest boat has the right of way." The guy was totally serious, was a powerboater, and argued the point religiously until we pulled out the old COLREGS and showed him. Experience is not the only teacher, just usually the best. For example, "How does one recover from drowning?" Experience is probably NOT the best teacher in this situation as it would not be possible to get any experience after the first incident. In this case, proper training on how NOT to drown would be more prudent. I agree that experience is the best teacher for sail trim, heavy weather handling, docking precision, boat maintenance, high-speed handling, and similar areas. I do not agree that experience is the best teacher for the novice. How many boats must a novice damage before he gets enough experience to get out of his slip without hitting something? How many kids must die before the novice gets enough experience to keep from running over them in a protected swim area? The list goes on and on. I too, do not like more regulation, but since common sense is not as common in people as it is in nature, those that have it should use it to regulate those that don't have it or refuse to use it. (How many doctors do you know that can't tie their shoes?) I've been boarded four times not counting inland waters. Each event was carried out with the utmost courtesy, professionalism, and thoroughness. Never have I received a citation, warning, or reprimand of any kind from these boardings. I didn't really appreciate the dog aboard on one occassion and I had to clean up the multitude of hair it left behind, but other than delays in my trips, boardings were a minor inconvenience. The vessel is already required to keep documentation (or registration) papers aboard. Persons usually keep their driver's license with them. I fail to see how licensing is 1) ANOTHER reason to be boarded or 2) that it's that big of a deal to whip out the ol' license and show it to the authorities. If you travel abroad you have to whip out the ol' passport, right? You mentioned coasties are boarding for nothing. Are they coming aboard and then just sitting in cockpit waiting for you to offer them tea and crumpets? I suspect that when they board they are looking at your USCG required equipment, the condition of your vessel, and if you look suspect of drug trading. If you are boarded, you were suspicious, random, or known to have the best cookies on the coast. It's just another responsibility of boating, making sure the enforcement personnel can stay in practice. I'll gladly accept that responsibility in hopes that the "coasties" get rid of or ticket the "crazies". "...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Comments are always welcome.
Back from a great weekend of foul weather, the kind that makes you wonder if you really love this sailing stuff or if you're full of (**)it. I am, HOWever, pleased to report, that 5 inches of rain, 2 gales, 1 tornado, and a couple of near-miss lightning strikes in two days did not leave any damage on a 1983 Catalina 30. Anyway, just wanted to respond to Steve. You're right, operator's licensing would keep other folks from driving your boat while underway. Didn't think of that one, but it would be beneficial in some cases when you find out that a friend that "used to own a ski boat" doesn't know crap about safety, rules of the road, or how to operate a vessel under power. For those others, yep, it would be inconvenient. I'll have to think a bit on that one. OTOH, I disagree with you on the "driver's licenses do not prevent accidents" statement. I think they do, but I am basing it on TX licensing requirements. To get a license, you must complete a training course, take a written test, take an eye test, and take a DRIVING test. If you cannot drive and obey the rules of the road, you don't get the license. Now, does having a license make one safe or instantly possess common sense? Of course not, but to get the license requires some practice driving, knowledge of signs (stop, yield, no passing zone, do not enter, one way, etc.), traffic separation schemes (stay on the right lane, no passing on the right, double stripe in middle of road, passing lanes, slower traffic keep right, etc.), and a good working knowledge of how to drive the vehicle (parallel park, forward, reverse, brakes, turns (with proper signalling), keeping a watchful eye, etc, etc). So, let's say you handed a licensing test to a 12 year old that was a really good reader, but had never been in a car. The test would definitely let the 12 year old know what he did not know about driving. Could the 12 year old pass the driving test? No, I expect not. Take a 25 year old that had never been in a car (OK, that's not likely, but stay with me) and do the same thing. Could they pass the written and driving test? No, I think not. The same applies to boats; operators' licensing would simply make sure there is a minimum of training and/or knowledge possessed by the operator before the operator is allowed to drive/sail. My point? When a person without that experience you spoke of (and I partially agree with that issue) launches a boat and takes off, they DO NOT know what they don't know. Uh....they do not know what knowledge they are missing. Yeah, that's it. They may have no idea what dangers lie ahead or the proper way to stay out of the way or "stand-on". Having some minimum level of training required will keep more people safe and, IMHO, reduce accidents. Hopefully, the training/licensing program would contain some information on etiquette such as "It's really, really rude to cut a giant wake in front of a slow-moving sailboat. You've got the entire friggin' ocean to navigate in and you're doing 25 knots anyway, you should just go astern." or other such things that make sailing better. I should probably put this one in the Funny Stories section, but I recent heard at a waterfront bar, that "the fastest boat has the right of way." The guy was totally serious, was a powerboater, and argued the point religiously until we pulled out the old COLREGS and showed him. Experience is not the only teacher, just usually the best. For example, "How does one recover from drowning?" Experience is probably NOT the best teacher in this situation as it would not be possible to get any experience after the first incident. In this case, proper training on how NOT to drown would be more prudent. I agree that experience is the best teacher for sail trim, heavy weather handling, docking precision, boat maintenance, high-speed handling, and similar areas. I do not agree that experience is the best teacher for the novice. How many boats must a novice damage before he gets enough experience to get out of his slip without hitting something? How many kids must die before the novice gets enough experience to keep from running over them in a protected swim area? The list goes on and on. I too, do not like more regulation, but since common sense is not as common in people as it is in nature, those that have it should use it to regulate those that don't have it or refuse to use it. (How many doctors do you know that can't tie their shoes?) I've been boarded four times not counting inland waters. Each event was carried out with the utmost courtesy, professionalism, and thoroughness. Never have I received a citation, warning, or reprimand of any kind from these boardings. I didn't really appreciate the dog aboard on one occassion and I had to clean up the multitude of hair it left behind, but other than delays in my trips, boardings were a minor inconvenience. The vessel is already required to keep documentation (or registration) papers aboard. Persons usually keep their driver's license with them. I fail to see how licensing is 1) ANOTHER reason to be boarded or 2) that it's that big of a deal to whip out the ol' license and show it to the authorities. If you travel abroad you have to whip out the ol' passport, right? You mentioned coasties are boarding for nothing. Are they coming aboard and then just sitting in cockpit waiting for you to offer them tea and crumpets? I suspect that when they board they are looking at your USCG required equipment, the condition of your vessel, and if you look suspect of drug trading. If you are boarded, you were suspicious, random, or known to have the best cookies on the coast. It's just another responsibility of boating, making sure the enforcement personnel can stay in practice. I'll gladly accept that responsibility in hopes that the "coasties" get rid of or ticket the "crazies". "...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Comments are always welcome.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.