Hassled By Coast Guard Aux

[LakeMeadLavey]

I will be sending a formal complaint email tomorrow to the contacts Alan provided. Someone needs to take this guy off his high horse. I will let you all know the outcome or response I receive.

It really irratates me that I had to deal with this jack ass when he had no authority in the first place. Thanks again Alan for all the helpful info you provided. Good to know.

 

[Guest]

I will be sending a formal complaint email tomorrow to the contacts Alan provided. Someone needs to take this guy off his high horse. I will let you all know the outcome or response I receive.

It really irratates me that I had to deal with this jack ass when he had no authority in the first place. Thanks again Alan for all the helpful info you provided. Good to know.

Was his name ...Frank Holbert?

 

[callbob]

or GRADS?

 

[BoatCop]

Well, this applies to Texas, and even they have concerns with the 4th ammendment. I guess I am struggling how this applies to the Coloado River.

A couple quick questions:

1. This ruling applies to Texas- does it apply to the Colorado River?
2. Once again, the court is weighing checkpoints vs rights, and allowing a boarding stop because a checkpoint in not feasable in this area. Do you believe that checkpoints are not doable in the Colorado River?
3. Are there any rulings from the Superme Court on non-documented vessels for "Reasonable Suspicion" stops?

Sorry to be such a pain.

1. The Texas ruling sets precedent in Texas only. I just used that example of how State Appeals Courts have applied the Villamonte-MArquez ruling on sole-state Waters. There have been other similar State decisions.

2. The court mentioned check-points, but didn't use that for the sole reason. The court based their decision on law that was set by the First US Congress, which set the stage for our Constitution, and as the Justices stated, had an 'impressive historical pedigree' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality". A Supreme Court decision regarding actions on Federal Waters, sets precedent on ALL Federal Waters.

3. The Villamonte-Marquez appeal was on the CG authority that they "may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction".

Any vessel within the US Territorial Waters of the United States and any Federal Waterway are under the jurisdiction of the Untied States. Even vessels flagged under other nations, unless within US waters by "force majure" (forced by weather, mechanical breakdown, or other issue) which had no intention of purposely enter US waters.

Whether documented by the USCG, documented under another Nation's Flag, or registered in a US State or Territory, if the vessel is in US waters, it is under US jurisdiction.

On the High seas, the US has jurisdiction over any US vessel.

Regulation of vessels falls under the responsibility of the Federal Government. The States register boats because the Federal Government requires them to do so. Under the Federal Boats Safety Act of 1971 (and its predecessor the Motorboat Act of 1940) the US Government requires States to register recreational boats (among other duties). In exchange, the Federal Government provides to the States $70 million (currently) for them to establish and maintain their boat registration system, in addition to boat accident reporting & investigation, boating education, training , enforcement and other boating responsibilities. In states that did not establish those programs, the Coast Guard did it for them. Alaska was one of the last to have the Coast Guard register boats for them. In those cases, they gave up their portion on the $70 mil.

Having the States register boats was a more efficient and cost effective way to "document" vessels than to have the Coast Guard manage the program for the millions of recreational boats in the US. In doing so, with Federal Money, the United States (ie the Coast Guard) retains jurisdiction over all watercraft documented or registered in the United States, its States or its territories.

Inside US waters the US Government has jurisdiction over ALL vessels (as explained above). Outside of US Waters, (high seas) the only vessels that the US does NOT have jurisdiction over would be those under the flag of another Country. Except that the Coast Guard will exercise authority if granted permission by the Country the vessel is flagged under, or the vessel is declared "stateless", which means that the Country that the vessel claims to be flagged under disavows that the vessel is theirs, or the vessel is not flying a flag of ANY country.

 

[BoatCop]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

 

[Crazyhippy]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

So no experience as a coast guard auxiliary... interesting...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[callbob]

probably stayed at a Holiday Inn Express dinja?

 

[SKIDMARC]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

Wow now I am impressed!!!

All serious thanks for all the great info, never been hasled by the CG aux peps, but good to know for the future.

 

[Havasu Hangin']

13. The Villamonte-Marquez appeal was on the CG authority that they "may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction".

I guess I read the ruling differently. I read that their decision was based on certain criteria, and I would assume that if those criteria weren't met, the ruling wouldn't apply. Apples to Oranges, but I've been wrong before.

OK, just for clarification, lets run through a scenario:

A very nice lady, we'll call her "Mrs. Boatcup" has to commute to work everyday. Her commute takes her on a boat, and through a no wake are we'll call "the locks".

The Locks are enforced by an agency we'll call "The La Pez County Sherrifs Dept".

Now, the officer for the La Pez County Sherriff has nothing to do early in the morning, so he decides to pull her over coming out of The Locks, and do a "Safety Inspection". She passes with flying colors.

This officer proceeds to pull her over three times a week, which makes her have to leave even earlier for work now, but sometimes she gets there too early if the daily inspection doesn't happen.

One day, he sees her coming home from work, and decides to do a safety inspection. It was a little rough that day, so he cites her for a throw cushion that fell out of reach. She fixes the issue.

Now, since he found out that some of her gear may be out of compliance, he steps up his random stops to six per week- some in the morning, some in the evening, but random nonetheless.

Does this fit into your interpretation of what Villamonte-Marquez actually means to enforcement?

 

[fourtznme]

I guess I read the ruling differently. I read that their decision was based on certain criteria, and I would assume that if those criteria weren't met, the ruling wouldn't apply. Apples to Oranges, but I've been wrong before.

OK, just for clarification, lets run through a scenario:

A very nice lady, we'll call her "Mrs. Boatcup" has to commute to work everyday. Her commute takes her on a boat, and through a no wake are we'll call "the locks".

The Locks are enforced by an agency we'll call "The La Pez County Sherrifs Dept".

Now, the officer for the La Pez County Sherriff has nothing to do early in the morning, so he decides to pull her over coming out of The Locks, and do a "Safety Inspection". She passes with flying colors.

This officer proceeds to pull her over three times a week, which makes her have to leave even earlier for work now, but sometimes she gets there too early if the daily inspection doesn't happen.

One day, he sees her coming home from work, and decides to do a safety inspection. It was a little rough that day, so he cites her for a throw cushion that fell out of reach. She fixes the issue.

Now, since he found out that some of her gear may be out of compliance, he steps up his random stops to six per week- some in the morning, some in the evening, but random nonetheless.

Does this fit into your interpretation of what Villamonte-Marquez actually means to enforcement?

WOW! Way to much time.

 

[ONE-A-DAY]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

So your like 85?


MedicalPlanQuotes.com / IPhone

 

[ductape1000]

I guess I read the ruling differently. I read that their decision was based on certain criteria, and I would assume that if those criteria weren't met, the ruling wouldn't apply. Apples to Oranges, but I've been wrong before.

OK, just for clarification, lets run through a scenario:

A very nice lady, we'll call her "Mrs. Boatcup" has to commute to work everyday. Her commute takes her on a boat, and through a no wake are we'll call "the locks".

The Locks are enforced by an agency we'll call "The La Pez County Sherrifs Dept".

Now, the officer for the La Pez County Sherriff has nothing to do early in the morning, so he decides to pull her over coming out of The Locks, and do a "Safety Inspection". She passes with flying colors.

This officer proceeds to pull her over three times a week, which makes her have to leave even earlier for work now, but sometimes she gets there too early if the daily inspection doesn't happen.

One day, he sees her coming home from work, and decides to do a safety inspection. It was a little rough that day, so he cites her for a throw cushion that fell out of reach. She fixes the issue.

Now, since he found out that some of her gear may be out of compliance, he steps up his random stops to six per week- some in the morning, some in the evening, but random nonetheless.

Does this fit into your interpretation of what Villamonte-Marquez actually means to enforcement?

I would call this a guy trying really hard to get a date w/ Mrs. Boatcup!! :champagne:

 

[BoatCop]

I guess I read the ruling differently. I read that their decision was based on certain criteria, and I would assume that if those criteria weren't met, the ruling wouldn't apply. Apples to Oranges, but I've been wrong before.

OK, just for clarification, lets run through a scenario:

A very nice lady, we'll call her "Mrs. Boatcup" has to commute to work everyday. Her commute takes her on a boat, and through a no wake are we'll call "the locks".

The Locks are enforced by an agency we'll call "The La Pez County Sherrifs Dept".

Now, the officer for the La Pez County Sherriff has nothing to do early in the morning, so he decides to pull her over coming out of The Locks, and do a "Safety Inspection". She passes with flying colors.

This officer proceeds to pull her over three times a week, which makes her have to leave even earlier for work now, but sometimes she gets there too early if the daily inspection doesn't happen.

One day, he sees her coming home from work, and decides to do a safety inspection. It was a little rough that day, so he cites her for a throw cushion that fell out of reach. She fixes the issue.

Now, since he found out that some of her gear may be out of compliance, he steps up his random stops to six per week- some in the morning, some in the evening, but random nonetheless.

Does this fit into your interpretation of what Villamonte-Marquez actually means to enforcement?

What you describe is out and out harassment. Like anything else, when power is abused it can be taken away or severely restricted.

There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. While the letter of the law may allow the actions you describe to be permissible, the spirit of the law clearly shows that the officer has gone way beyond reasonableness.

Whenever a court looks at a case, the main thing it looks at is whether the action is "reasonable". Stopping her once to check would be reasonable. It would also be reasonable to believe that when she is stopped once, when not expecting it, and has all required equipment, that she would still have all required equipment when stopped the next day, when she IS expecting it.

Any court would determine that the continued stopping of that particular vessel is unreasonable.

Which is exactly why I've always taught that although we do have that authority, if it's overused and abused, it can be overturned.

And is also the reason for the Coast Guard Auxiliary's Courtesy Marine Examination program and decal. Coast Guard Officials (and we) are instructed NOT to do random stops of vessels displaying a valid CME decal. If someone takes the time to have their vessel and equipment inspected and certified safe by the CG Auxiliary it is reasonable to believe that the owner is aware of the safety requirements and the vessel will continue to have what's required.

 

[BoatCop]

So your like 85?


MedicalPlanQuotes.com / IPhone

Nah. I just FEEL that old. :grumble:

 

[Havasu Hangin']

What you describe is out and out harassment. Like anything else, when power is abused it can be taken away or severely restricted.

There is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. While the letter of the law may allow the actions you describe to be permissible, the spirit of the law clearly shows that the officer has gone way beyond reasonableness.

Whenever a court looks at a case, the main thing it looks at is whether the action is "reasonable". Stopping her once to check would be reasonable. It would also be reasonable to believe that when she is stopped once, when not expecting it, and has all required equipment, that she would still have all required equipment when stopped the next day, when she IS expecting it.

Any court would determine that the continued stopping of that particular vessel is unreasonable.

Which is exactly why I've always taught that although we do have that authority, if it's overused and abused, it can be overturned.

And is also the reason for the Coast Guard Auxiliary's Courtesy Marine Examination program and decal. Coast Guard Officials (and we) are instructed NOT to do random stops of vessels displaying a valid CME decal. If someone takes the time to have their vessel and equipment inspected and certified safe by the CG Auxiliary it is reasonable to believe that the owner is aware of the safety requirements and the vessel will continue to have what's required.

I know you find this hard to believe, but I do agree with you. Where things get sideways is where a LEO interprets the spirit of the law and the letter of the law differently than what most folks consider rational. Not everyone out there looks at things how you do (shocking, I know).

For example, lets say a LEO has to subdue a subject, and in the process, gets involved in a "resonable force" court case. Now, lets say the Supreme Court upholds his right to defend himself when subduing a combative subject.

Does this mean that it's OK for every officer to go out and beat citizens because that's what the court ruled? Of course not, but think you get my point- there are those officers who would take that as the letter of the law.

Where an officer's right to "safety check" a boat stops, and harrassment begins is left up to each officer's interpretation of a frankly gray area ("reasonable").

And I'm not talking about pulling someone over because they can't apply a decal correctly- I get it. You're basically telling an officer you have compliance issues before you even talk to him.

For the record, I am not "anti-Coast Guard". All the dealings I've had with them are the complete opposite of the original poster's experience. I don't think I ever put the decal on, but maybe one day I will.

However, the Newport Beach Police Department is another story...lol.

 

[GRADS2009]

I don't know where you guys boat but up here in NorCal the Coast Guard Auxiliary is usually 2-4 guys that are typically about 60-70 years old squeezing into their C.G. uniform that they wore when they were 50 pounds lighter.

Most of the time their boat is one of their personal boats, usually a 1970's era SeaRay with a Coast Guard sticker slapped on the windshield.

They generally just boat around the lake and wave to other boaters and I'm pretty sure that the ice chest they have shoved under the dash has more beers in it than mine.

 

[RUNNINHOTRACING163.1]

I would file a complaint with the CG - He definatly overstepped his boundaries and authority - How dare him threaten you with a OUI at the end of the day. What a POS!

+100 and hopefully bump into him at the bar after his shift :skull











ROCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :champagne:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/190649028759
ITS A SKATER NATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:drnkfr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOAT-TR..._Accessories_Gear&hash=item3cb4089d56&vxp=mtr

 

[BasilHayden]

Wow,

Lots of good info but also shows why many of us feel it is the norm, not the exception when leo oversteps his bounds. I had a similar comment of the right to carry thread the other day.

Basically I believe if leo would respect our rights as much as we are to respect his authority, we would have a much better impression of each other.

Btw, I hope to meet Alan someday to thank him for being a rational voice in an irrational situation.

:blah::blah::blah:

 

[BoatCop]

I know you find this hard to believe, but I do agree with you. Where things get sideways is where a LEO interprets the spirit of the law and the letter of the law differently than what most folks consider rational. Not everyone out there looks at things how you do (shocking, I know).

For example, lets say a LEO has to subdue a subject, and in the process, gets involved in a "resonable force" court case. Now, lets say the Supreme Court upholds his right to defend himself when subduing a combative subject.

Does this mean that it's OK for every officer to go out and beat citizens because that's what the court ruled? Of course not, but think you get my point- there are those officers who would take that as the letter of the law.

Where an officer's right to "safety check" a boat stops, and harrassment begins is left up to each officer's interpretation of a frankly gray area ("reasonable").

And I'm not talking about pulling someone over because they can't apply a decal correctly- I get it. You're basically telling an officer you have compliance issues before you even talk to him.

For the record, I am not "anti-Coast Guard". All the dealings I've had with them are the complete opposite of the original poster's experience. I don't think I ever put the decal on, but maybe one day I will.

However, the Newport Beach Police Department is another story...lol.

The issue the OP had was with an individual Coast Guard Auxiliary member, not the Coast Guard. Like any other profession it's usually the bad apple that ruins the whole bunch. Most of the Auxiliarists I've worked with over the years are professional, know their role and don't overstep their boundaries. But it takes one jack-hole to tarnish the entire service.

The same is with police officers. Nobody remembers one Christmas day when I traipsed through the desert for 6 hours on the trailing end of a 30' bloodhound lead searching for (and finding) a 33 year old "boy" with the mental capacity of a 3 year old who'd wandered away from his parents trailer.

But everyone remembers the immature dickwad who somehow snowed his way through the screening process and labels us all as incompetent, power hungry assholes.

 

[Flyinbowtie]

Yup...nobody remembers when we do that stuff Alan...but we do.

 

[SydneyRaysDad]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

Yeah but do you know Chris Costa ?!?!?!

 

[McRib]

Im to drunk to read right now. Whats the answer to the question about launching a boat with people in in under power? Ive never heard of walkin a boat of of a trailer. idk if this was answered. Sorry. Boatcop can u enlighten?

 

[BajaMike]

Well, this applies to Texas, and even they have concerns with the 4th ammendment. I guess I am struggling how this applies to the Coloado River.

A couple quick questions:

1. This ruling applies to Texas- does it apply to the Colorado River?
Sorry to be such a pain.

The "Texas" issue may be confusing things. There is a "Colorado River" in Texas that forms Lake Travis and flows through downtown Austin. This is not the the "Colorado River" most people on RDP are familiar with and it does not form a border between two states (I believe it is entirely within Texas) so it may not fall within the control of the Coast Guard.

Just an FYI in case HH was talking about the "other" Colorado River.

:champagne:

 

[Chipster27]

Im to drunk to read right now. Whats the answer to the question about launching a boat with people in in under power? Ive never heard of walkin a boat of of a trailer. idk if this was answered. Sorry. Boatcop can u enlighten?

Answer

It may be a local regulation, but that would be under a vehicle code or park regulation, but not any Federal or California Harbors & Navigation code.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TPC]

The CG Aux has always been helpful to us.
Our Ray Marine nav/radar/GPS/Sonar instruction book and video on operation is hardly much more that "Turn unit on, press ok button (not marked nor labeled or icon) use unit."

The CG guys know this is common and showed us how to really use the unit.

The backing in/out with passengers in the boat is a bad law and strickly enforced by the Rangers at Emerald Cove.
They write those goofy Fed tickets that only go on your record if ya don't pay them.

But it's a terrible law. Stupid and puts people and kids walking on the launch ramps and all over the place, makes it even tougher for parents to supervise their kids around water,, rather than be seated outta harms way close to their family.

That law is all bad.

It's not a CG aux issue, it's the BLM that enforces it and you can gripe about it at their office in Parker.
They write lot's of citations to make it look like they are needed if congressional budget cuts are considered.

I remember at Pyramid your passengers had to be in the boat for safety sakes on the launch ramp.
Some Govt genius at work.

 

[getreal]

Next time have your GoPro ready and make sure he knows he is on camera.

 

[VoodooMedMan]

Yeah but do you know Chris Costa ?!?!?!

I know a guy who knows Chris Costa. Does that make me somebody?

 

[Old Texan]

The CG Aux has always been helpful to us.
Our Ray Marine nav/radar/GPS/Sonar instruction book and video on operation is hardly much more that "Turn unit on, press ok button (not marked nor labeled or icon) use unit."

The CG guys know this is common and showed us how to really use the unit.

The backing in/out with passengers in the boat is a bad law and strickly enforced by the Rangers at Emerald Cove.
They write those goofy Fed tickets that only go on your record if ya don't pay them.

But it's a terrible law. Stupid and puts people and kids walking on the launch ramps and all over the place, makes it even tougher for parents to supervise their kids around water,, rather than be seated outta harms way close to their family.

That law is all bad.

It's not a CG aux issue, it's the BLM that enforces it and you can gripe about it at their office in Parker.
They write lot's of citations to make it look like they are needed if congressional budget cuts are considered.

I remember at Pyramid your passengers had to be in the boat for safety sakes on the launch ramp.
Some Govt genius at work.

So you can't have folks on board at launch......Can you have them on board at pullout?

To me it's far more dangerous to have kids and old folks have to get out on an often poorly maintained dock pier. Some sites I use have minimal docks with approach boards missing......You're right on about it being a terrible law.

I've never heard of this nonsense anywhere I've boated or heard it being enforced if it is an actual law. Just the added congestion on a busy day makes it a bad idea. Load 'em up and put her in and pull her out and get 'em out in the parking lot using the ladder is far more sensible and safe, to me anyway.

 

[Old Texan]

Was his name ...Frank Holbert?

Aux PETTY Officer "Barney Fife".....With emphasis on PETTY.:skull

 

[BoatCop]

So you can't have folks on board at launch......Can you have them on board at pullout?

To me it's far more dangerous to have kids and old folks have to get out on an often poorly maintained dock pier. Some sites I use have minimal docks with approach boards missing......You're right on about it being a terrible law.

I've never heard of this nonsense anywhere I've boated or heard it being enforced if it is an actual law. Just the added congestion on a busy day makes it a bad idea. Load 'em up and put her in and pull her out and get 'em out in the parking lot using the ladder is far more sensible and safe, to me anyway.

It sounds like they are strictly enforcing a law that says there can be no passengers in a towed unit (trailer, boat, etc).

This is where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law come into play. The intent of such laws are to keep people from falling or jumping out when a trailer is being towed down the highway, or not having the driver in direct contact with persons in an enclosed house trailer.

I don't think it was envisioned to stop people from being in a boat as it's being backed down the ramp. (Driving from the campsite to the ramp, may be a different story, though).

FYI. There is no such law in AZ, although Lake Havasu City has an ordinance prohibiting riding in or on trailers, including trailered boats.

 

[Old Texan]

It sounds like they are strictly enforcing a law that says there can be no passengers in a towed unit (trailer, boat, etc).

This is where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law come into play. The intent of such laws are to keep people from falling or jumping out when a trailer is being towed down the highway, or not having the driver in direct contact with persons in an enclosed house trailer.

I don't think it was envisioned to stop people from being in a boat as it's being backed down the ramp. (Driving from the campsite to the ramp, may be a different story, though).

FYI. There is no such law in AZ, although Lake Havasu City has an ordinance prohibiting riding in or on trailers, including trailered boats.

Thanks Alan.

This grey area is the kind of stuff an overzealous type like the Aux CG guy feed on.

 

[Chestah Cheetah]

To the top:

Had my first experience with a Coast Guard Auxilary last weekend at Lake Nacimiento Marina. As I dropped off my GF at the Marina/Gas Dock, auxilary guy walks up and asks me to tie up for an inspection sticker.

CG: You're gonna need an inspection sticker or else the sherriff or ranger WILL pull you over.

Me: I'll be fine, thanks. I'd also rather not put a sticker on the boat. I have every piece of safety equipmet and I'm not gonna be driving drunk.

CG: I bet you you're missing at least something and that one item could cost you an $800 fine.

This is all while I'm idling just out of his reach off of the dock.

Me: I'll bet you that $800 that I do have everything.

At this point, CG guy starts rattling off just a few items and I confirm with him that I do have them. I then proceed to add flares and a paddle of which he tells me are NOT required...

He finally let's it ago and moves away as a fire now erupts on a boat at the gas dock. The boat owner had it under control in a snap but the CG guy just got a hard on and ran over to save the day.

 

[Sandlord]

so the guy still owes you $800 ?

 

[Chestah Cheetah]

so the guy still owes you $800 ?

Nah, I let it go since he was busy supervising the boat fire and all.

 

[RUNNINHOTRACING163.1]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

BC is a first aid kit required for the safety check ?










ROCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :champagne:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/190649028759
ITS A SKATER NATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:drnkfr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOAT-TR..._Accessories_Gear&hash=item3cb4089d56&vxp=mtr

 

[Willie B]

...I lived aboard for 8 years and one of the first things I was told by the other boat owners,..."Don't let the Coast guard auxillary board your boat for inspection as they are amatures...

...I was also told something like,...that with a documented vessle,...city county state had no right to board your vessle,...that being documented it fell under federal authority,...ie Coast Guard... ...It seems to me that at the time this was proven to me, but in truth,...I don't know if this is fact???...

...I believe you could document your vessle if it met a certain length requirement,...possibly 40 feet???... ...No more CF #'s... ...Not sure what the benifits were???...

 

[LuauLounge]

A CGA attempted to ram us during Fleet Week in a no wake zone, because we weren't moving fast enough....

 

[BoatCop]

...I lived aboard for 8 years and one of the first things I was told by the other boat owners,..."Don't let the Coast guard auxillary board your boat for inspection as they are amatures...

...I was also told something like,...that with a documented vessle,...city county state had no right to board your vessle,...that being documented it fell under federal authority,...ie Coast Guard... ...It seems to me that at the time this was proven to me, but in truth,...I don't know if this is fact???...

...I believe you could document your vessle if it met a certain length requirement,...possibly 40 feet???... ...No more CF #'s... ...Not sure what the benifits were???...

CG Documentation has nothing to do with "only Federal Authority". State and local authorities have full jurisdiction over ANY watercraft operating on their jurisdictional waterways. Whether Federally Documented or State Registered.

That would be like saying if you have California registration then only California cops can stop you and AZ or other states' police can't pull you over.

 

[Willie B]

CG Documentation has nothing to do with "only Federal Authority". State and local authorities have full jurisdiction over ANY watercraft operating on their jurisdictional waterways. Whether Federally Documented or State Registered.

That would be like saying if you have California registration then only California cops can stop you and AZ or other states' police can't pull you over.

...Thanks... ...Maybe some did it for tax reasons,...I don't know???... ...That was thirty years ago and my memory is slowly dwindleing away

 

[Serena]

So Saturday we took the boat up to Pyramid for the day. Standing at the ramp were two younger CG Auxilary guys. As soon as I backed the boat in the water with my brother at the helm, he approaches with a major attitude.

He informed me that it was illegal to have anyone in the boat when I back it in the water and this is a $700 ticket?? Instead I am to tie dock lines to the boat and back in next to the dock. I was then supposed to walk the boat off, tie the boat up and at that point someone can board? WTF I have never heard of this or seen anyone do this in my 30+ years of boating other than someone launching alone. Has anyone ever been hassled for this?

He then proceeds to hassle me over the AZ regis when I said we have a residence in AZ and the boat is there 90% of the time. Truck and trailer are regis in CA.

Next he says we need to go tie up at the dock for a full inspection. No problem, as we always have everything required. Once he sees we have everything, he said none of the vests can be in the locker or under any seats. Ok fine.

Now he wants to board the boat by stepping on the seats with his filthy boots to do a bilge inspection to check for fuel or oil leaks and a flame arrestor? The boat has 90 hrs and and the bilge is immaculate. Finnaly at this point after 15 min when we said is this really neccessary he sends us on our way after saying he will be checking when we come in for OUI?? Nobody was planning on drinking.

I have no problem with inpections etc but this guy was just a complete DICK. Previous 2 weekends LASO were wathcing everyone launch and never bothered anyone.

I see Sunday they had a fatality jet ski vs boat which is no surprise to me. Idiots everywhere on jet skis. Maybe AUX "J. Ramirez" should have been educating other peeps on safety rather than hassling someone trying to find something.

I was there that weekend. At least I think I was there. Are we talking about the Lake Pyramid in LA County or the one up north in Neveda/California, I believe in Washoe County? I'm new to RD. I've been try to learn more about boating. I remember seeing these guys but I want to make sure that we're talking about the same place. Thanks

 

[RUNNINHOTRACING163.1]

A CGA attempted to ram us during Fleet Week in a no wake zone, because we weren't moving fast enough....

:fsakes






ROCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :champagne:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/190649028759
ITS A SKATER NATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:drnkfr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOAT-TR..._Accessories_Gear&hash=item3cb4089d56&vxp=mtr

 

[Serena]

:fsakes






ROCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :champagne:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/190649028759
ITS A SKATER NATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:drnkfr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOAT-TR..._Accessories_Gear&hash=item3cb4089d56&vxp=mtr

Where was that??/

 

[rmarion]

So Saturday we took the boat up to Pyramid for the day. Standing at the ramp were two younger CG Auxilary guys. As soon as I backed the boat in the water with my brother at the helm, he approaches with a major attitude.

He informed me that it was illegal to have anyone in the boat when I back it in the water and this is a $700 ticket?? Instead I am to tie dock lines to the boat and back in next to the dock. I was then supposed to walk the boat off, tie the boat up and at that point someone can board? WTF I have never heard of this or seen anyone do this in my 30+ years of boating other than someone launching alone. Has anyone ever been hassled for this?

He then proceeds to hassle me over the AZ regis when I said we have a residence in AZ and the boat is there 90% of the time. Truck and trailer are regis in CA.

Next he says we need to go tie up at the dock for a full inspection. No problem, as we always have everything required. Once he sees we have everything, he said none of the vests can be in the locker or under any seats. Ok fine.

Now he wants to board the boat by stepping on the seats with his filthy boots to do a bilge inspection to check for fuel or oil leaks and a flame arrestor? The boat has 90 hrs and and the bilge is immaculate. Finnaly at this point after 15 min when we said is this really neccessary he sends us on our way after saying he will be checking when we come in for OUI?? Nobody was planning on drinking.

I have no problem with inpections etc but this guy was just a complete DICK. Previous 2 weekends LASO were wathcing everyone launch and never bothered anyone.

I see Sunday they had a fatality jet ski vs boat which is no surprise to me. Idiots everywhere on jet skis. Maybe AUX "J. Ramirez" should have been educating other peeps on safety rather than hassling someone trying to find something.

I think this guy works the Lower river also....

 

[LakeMeadLavey]

Just to update this thread..... We have been contacted by the district captain of the CG Auxilary in response to the formal complaint email sent. The district captain was very nice gentleman who was very apologetic and agreed this individual was out of line with his actions.

The captain is in the process of identifying this individual, as the two J. Ramirez listed in this district have denied being at the lake on that date. They LASO confirmed Auxilary memebers were present however, they did not sign in. My brother had remembered a tatoo on the J. Ramirez we dealt with and refered this info to the captian. He said this would be helpful in identifying the correct J. Ramirez.

They are taking this complaint very seriously, as he stated this can damage the public image of the Auxilary program and is not by any means their purpose of being at the lakes.

Its nice to see the quick response from the captain and hopefully J. Ramirez will be reprimanded accordingly. I am sure most all of the Auxilary members are doing a great service to the boating community and its to bad one bad apple can tarnish the image of all the ones trying to help keep people safe.

 

[Racey]

Just to update this thread..... We have been contacted by the district captain of the CG Auxilary in response to the formal complaint email sent. The district captain was very nice gentleman who was very apologetic and agreed this individual was out of line with his actions.

The captain is in the process of identifying this individual, as the two J. Ramirez listed in this district have denied being at the lake on that date. They LASO confirmed Auxilary memebers were present however, they did not sign in. My brother had remembered a tatoo on the J. Ramirez we dealt with and refered this info to the captian. He said this would be helpful in identifying the correct J. Ramirez.

They are taking this complaint very seriously, as he stated this can damage the public image of the Auxilary program and is not by any means their purpose of being at the lakes.

Its nice to see the quick response from the captain and hopefully J. Ramirez will be reprimanded accordingly. I am sure most all of the Auxilary members are doing a great service to the boating community and its to bad one bad apple can tarnish the image of all the ones trying to help keep people safe.

Good to hear, I would have fucking lost it when he stepped on the seats.

 

[rivergames]

Good to hear, I would have fucking lost it when he stepped on the seats.

X2 :grumble:

 

[Old Texan]

If the guy didn't sign in, he's likely in violation of rules on top of being rude and wrong.

Maybe he's a fraud posing as a CGA.....Weirder stuff has been know to happen.

 

[Froggystyle]

And just to set qualifications, I retired with 27+ years (1975-2002) in the Coast Guard, 13 Active Duty and 14 Reserve. I spent 3 years in a special Coast Guard Boating Safety/Enforcement Team and taught Coast Guard jurisdiction and authority, boarding techniques, and Recreational Boating Safety to regular Coast Guard personnel.

Is anyone else sick of this guy coming in here and spouting off rules and regulations all the time like some kind of Boat-Cop know it all?



I know I'm not!

Thanks for everything you contribute on here Alan. Having a well-meaning, well-informed gent like yourself is a real asset to the board, and really puts a ding in speculation and buffoonery.

The problem is, for every Alan, there are a larger number of power hungry numb-nuts running around...

Thanks again, and hope to see you on the water sooner than later.

Wes

 

[GET SOME]

Is anyone else sick of this guy coming in here and spouting off rules and regulations all the time like some kind of Boat-Cop know it all?



I know I'm not!

Thanks for everything you contribute on here Alan. Having a well-meaning, well-informed gent like yourself is a real asset to the board, and really puts a ding in speculation and buffoonery.

The problem is, for every Alan, there are a larger number of power hungry numb-nuts running around...

Thanks again, and hope to see you on the water sooner than later.

Wes

Could not of said it better!

 

[BoatCop]

Is anyone else sick of this guy coming in here and spouting off rules and regulations all the time like some kind of Boat-Cop know it all?



I know I'm not!

Thanks for everything you contribute on here Alan. Having a well-meaning, well-informed gent like yourself is a real asset to the board, and really puts a ding in speculation and buffoonery.

The problem is, for every Alan, there are a larger number of power hungry numb-nuts running around...

Thanks again, and hope to see you on the water sooner than later.

Wes

Thanks Wes.:thumbsup

I also got a call from the CG Auxiliary about the complaint and this thread. Apparently before they received the official complaint. They were wondering if I knew the contact info for the complainant, which of course, I didn't.

Glad it was followed through on and is being handled.