"Roger Long" wrote in
:

This will decimate the boating industry and be pretty painful to
anyone who wants to sell a boat. The industry is so over developed
and crowded that just a slowing in growth causes panic and a 10% drop
in the number of boating households would be right up there with an
asteroid wiping out Florida. How many people do you think would
decide to take up some other recreational activity if they needed a
license? This will fit very nicely with the DHS real agenda. If you
are looking for the needle in a haystack of a terrorist in a pleasure
craft, the fewer straws out there, the better.



Hmm...standing on the dock full of for sale signs....prices plummeting hard
on used boats....six pack or coastal master's license in your pocket.....

Is there a downside to this if you're not a broker or dealer??

Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.

How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!

On Dec 19, 4:18 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
I haven't seen the article... Although I'm not enthusiastic about the
red-tape and hassle involved for licensing for regular boaters, I'm
wondering if it's such a terrible thing. (I should add that I'm likely not
affected, since I have a CG license.) One needs a license to operate a motor
vehicle, why not a floating vehicle? ...

The CG wants boaters to be required to have positive ID on them at all
times. If your mariners ticket is like mine it is just a bit of paper
and pretty useless as an ID so they'd probably make you at least go
and get a merchant marine ID card (STCW). As Roger points out the CG
is pushing this as a "Homeland Security" measure not a boating safety
measure. Test based licensing is a different thing and while I don't
see any compelling reason for it there is a strong trend towards it in
the states. The group knocked the licensing topic around pretty hard
not too long ago and I'm not excited to revisit it. I hate the idea.
It seems like an expensive solution looking for a problem. And the
short answer to your question seems to me to be that operating motor
vehicles on the roads has proven to be very dangerous even with
mandatory testing while operating boats even without testing have
proven to be pretty safe.

-- Tom.

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:29:12 -0500, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Much snipped
In a more sensible mode, can anyone tell me where the HLS got all
their trained and experienced personal? From abroad it (HLS) appeared
to blossom into being almost over night with agents everywhere. Where
did they all come from?

Probably illegal immigrants. Have you heard that in UK it has just been
found that hundreds, or even thousands, of people working in 'security' jobs
were given these jobs without a check first to see if they were legally able
to work in UK at all? Some even got jobs in Government Departments,,
including at least one in the Home Ofice itself

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:58:15 GMT, wrote:

ey like
the idea of requiring an ID, but they don't want to get involved in
administering a special ID of their own. They just want you to carry
your drivers licence or a state issued photo ID.

How can that be a problem. I mean all cops are allowed to ask for ID.
It isn't really hard to just carry although you may resent it. Things
are going downhill in the government way of things, and that will not
change.

Casady

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:23:20 -0500, "Roger Long"
wrote:

wrote

As Roger points out the CG is pushing this as a "Homeland Security"
measure not a boating safety
measure. Test based licensing is a different thing and while I don't
see
any compelling reason for it there is a strong trend towards it in
the states.

Thinking about it more, I don't think this will have a huge impact on the
boating industry. The interest groups that would be harmed by test based
licensing sufficient to raise the average standard of competence enough to
have a measurable impact on accident rates and search and rescue costs are
powerful enough that it just isn't going to happen. That would require a
course of instruction at least as long and expensive as the rather minimal
training standards for aircraft. Even that wouldn't do much. 10 - 15
hour
solo flight trainees actually have lower accident rates than 500 hour
pilots. 10,000 hour pilots do incredibly boneheaded things and die.
State
mandated boater safety courses with some kind of certificate that has to
be
presented to register a boat are coming, however. They will increase the
number of people who know the right of way rules enough to make it a
little
less nerve-wracking to be out on a busy Sunday afternoon and eat into the
fiberglass repair business slightly but won't do much else. The fee that
the states can collect when the certificate is issued probably has as much
to do with these programs as concern about the accident rates.

What is inevitable, I'm sure, is a cereal box top style license like the
VHF
operators license. Nothing scares the people protecting our freedoms more
than the public actually being free. They need everyone to have something
that can be taken away if they wish to deprive a person of the ability to
operate a watercraft legally. This satisfies the governmental instinct
for
control and political need to reassure the general non-boating populous
that
the waterways are are not a wild frontier. The fact that you don't need
to
operate legally to blow something up with a boat is irrelevant. It's all
smoke and mirrors, like the obsession with taking away nail clippers on
airlines just before the last presidential election.

Sigh... As I have pointed out before, this is a non-issue. The USCG
changed it's mind about this, and has said so in writing. They like
the idea of requiring an ID, but they don't want to get involved in
administering a special ID of their own. They just want you to carry
your drivers licence or a state issued photo ID.

How much more do they want? I carry a retired military ID card, and driver's
license both with pictures.
Of course, coming back from down island we would add the passport to the
pile. Homeland Security is
just another boondoggle so full of holes and for us taxpayers to foot the
bill.

Leanne

wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 4:18 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
I haven't seen the article... Although I'm not enthusiastic about the
red-tape and hassle involved for licensing for regular boaters, I'm
wondering if it's such a terrible thing. (I should add that I'm likely
not
affected, since I have a CG license.) One needs a license to operate a
motor
vehicle, why not a floating vehicle? ...

The CG wants boaters to be required to have positive ID on them at all
times. If your mariners ticket is like mine it is just a bit of paper
and pretty useless as an ID so they'd probably make you at least go
and get a merchant marine ID card (STCW). As Roger points out the CG
is pushing this as a "Homeland Security" measure not a boating safety
measure. Test based licensing is a different thing and while I don't
see any compelling reason for it there is a strong trend towards it in
the states. The group knocked the licensing topic around pretty hard
not too long ago and I'm not excited to revisit it. I hate the idea.
It seems like an expensive solution looking for a problem. And the
short answer to your question seems to me to be that operating motor
vehicles on the roads has proven to be very dangerous even with
mandatory testing while operating boats even without testing have
proven to be pretty safe.

-- Tom.


I believe it's TWIC, since I don't cross international boarders with my
license, but ok. I know you're right. I think it should be a boating safety
issue not a HS issue. I think a simple written test wouldn't be all that
terrible. Re driver licenses, I haven't had to do a test for that in 25
years (or more)... it's all done by mail unless you have a bunch of tickets.
What's wrong with first time boat owners having to take a written test?
While boating is much, much safer, I don't see why it would be such a
terrible thing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:29:12 -0500, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Much snipped
In a more sensible mode, can anyone tell me where the HLS got all
their trained and experienced personal? From abroad it (HLS) appeared
to blossom into being almost over night with agents everywhere. Where
did they all come from?

Probably illegal immigrants. Have you heard that in UK it has just been
found that hundreds, or even thousands, of people working in 'security'
jobs were given these jobs without a check first to see if they were
legally able to work in UK at all? Some even got jobs in Government
Departments,, including at least one in the Home Ofice itself



And, there was that FBI agent who's relatives were working with Ossama...
but who's counting....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote:
On 20 Dec 2007 12:28:03 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:08:59 GMT, said:

the American Sheeple have
turned into a nation of hand-wringing, Oprahcized, worry warts.
Nothing to do with Oprah, but worry warts? Witnessing the two towers burn
and fall from my office window made a pretty strong impression. And
remember, that was the second attempt on the towers.

Yes worry warts. The response by the United States has strongly
resembled a blindfolded kid, high on amphetamines, wildly swinging at
a pinata.

So you agree that the threat is valid, you just don't think the response
has been very good.

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

Stephen

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote:

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

are you referring to WTC Bldg. 7?

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On 20 Dec 2007 12:28:03 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:08:59 GMT, said:

the American Sheeple have
turned into a nation of hand-wringing, Oprahcized, worry warts.
Nothing to do with Oprah, but worry warts? Witnessing the two towers burn
and fall from my office window made a pretty strong impression. And
remember, that was the second attempt on the towers.
Yes worry warts. The response by the United States has strongly
resembled a blindfolded kid, high on amphetamines, wildly swinging at
a pinata.
So you agree that the threat is valid, you just don't think the response
has been very good.


No. I think we are chasing our collective tails, and have failed to
even identify the threat correctly. The response so far has been a
negative as far as solving the problem.

Swisssssh! You missed! :')

You didn't answer the question for the second time. This is common when
someone can't answer an argument. You used the term 'worrywarts' as
though there was nothing to worry about. When someone mentioned the WTC,
you changed your argument to be about us swinging blindly at the wrong
target. When I pointed out that you changed the argument and asked you
if you thought the threat was valid, you tried to shift it back again to
solving the problem, instead of whether there was a problem to worry about.

This sort of behavior on your part basically acknowledges that there is
a threat, otherwise you would have an answer for the question instead of
trying to change the subject. So you can stop using the term 'worrywart'
since you admit there is a real threat to worry about. Unless you'd
prefer to try again with the fruitless backpedaling?

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

Stephen

We removed Afghanistan as a safe haven. Bullseye.

Stephen