Deer hunters on VHF marine

Status
Not open for further replies.

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,694
Location
United States
...USCG is transferred to the Department of Defense and only then do they become a military agency.

Close, but the USCG is always part of the "military". From Title 14 of the US Code:

§ 1. Establishment of Coast Guard
The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title14/pdf/USCODE-2010-title14-partI-chap1-sec1.pdf
 

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
830
McK-
I know, they've played with the definitions (remember the US Code is revised annually and they don't print the new versions complete with original text and changes(G) especially since DHS and even before with the War On Drugs. It has been convenient, and politically expedient, to revise many things over the years. And the USCG, an amalgamation of so many things including the "Revenue Service" (which I think you'd agree is not military) and the early lifesaving services...Just ask yourself, does a real full-time military service have any business checking if some family on a Hobie are wearing life jackets? Is that a military mission? And would it make any sense at all, to have two "navies" ? Only to a politician.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,694
Location
United States
McK-
I know, they've played with the definitions (remember the US Code is revised annually and they don't print the new versions complete with original text and changes(G) especially since DHS and even before with the War On Drugs. It has been convenient, and politically expedient, to revise many things over the years. And the USCG, an amalgamation of so many things including the "Revenue Service" (which I think you'd agree is not military) and the early lifesaving services...Just ask yourself, does a real full-time military service have any business checking if some family on a Hobie are wearing life jackets? Is that a military mission? And would it make any sense at all, to have two "navies" ? Only to a politician.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. ;)

I can tell you that when I was in the US Coast Guard back in the 1990's, it was definitely one of the military services, and it still is.

The job of the USCG is different from the other services. That's why it's a separate entity.

Arguing this point is useless. I've posted the link to the US Code. If you want to disagree with the US Code, you need to take that up with the US Government.
 

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
830
I never disagree with the US Code, it outweighs me.(G)

I think we agree with the basics behind the problem, and the (cynic alert) intentional confusion. After all, if the USCG is/was always a military organization, they'd have a problem. "We the people" are exempt from the military chain of command. If the SecDef himself walks up to me and says "Si, step out of the car." I can say "Hey dude, go play with a monkey and get out of my way." And that's fully legal and proper, because as a military officer, he's got no authority over a civilian. And no repercussions to me.

But on the other hand, if an administrative agent of the government (like the IRS or USCG) tells me to do something, there are penalties for failing to comply. Which is why it is inadvisable to tell a Coastie "No, you may not board my vessel and my life jackets and fire extinguishers are none of your business."

They can't have it both ways, either they are military and required to keep hands-off, or they are administrative and CAN enforce administrative law. Whether they've finagled that perhaps by making the USCG full time military who are "lent" to the administrative DHS, or full time administrative who are lent to the DoD, could be another one of those "distinction without a difference" issues. They've still got a dual identify, dual roles, and arguably a congressional-induced split personality disorder. (And I've heard from enough Coasties who would be very much happier if Congress would just let them go back to SAR and safety and let the gung-ho's join that other Navy!)

Very much like the argument about smartphones, encryption, and the border services. If I'm in the US, there's that pesky amendment that was meant to prevent King George's own men, on his own highways, from being able to search my carriage for papers of revolt and sedition. Mine is mine, absent want and warrant. But no, they say you're not in the US and haven't got those rights until AFTER the search. Um, no, can't have it both ways. Having read and agreed with Machiavelli long ago, I can only say these things make me very worried for the longer term of our frail republic. Especially because of the way they attempt to sneak so many changes by, without the burning light of day.
 

toastycookies

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
726
Location
the far east

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,694
Location
United States
I never disagree with the US Code, it outweighs me.(G)

I think we agree with the basics behind the problem, and the (cynic alert) intentional confusion. After all, if the USCG is/was always a military organization, they'd have a problem. "We the people" are exempt from the military chain of command. If the SecDef himself walks up to me and says "Si, step out of the car." I can say "Hey dude, go play with a monkey and get out of my way." And that's fully legal and proper, because as a military officer, he's got no authority over a civilian. And no repercussions to me.

I don't think you understand the many roles of the US Coast Guard. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you. You seem content to argue the point simply because you don't want to be wrong. That's OK, I'm very used to dealing with individuals with that sort of mindset.

US Code is the US Code, doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

None the less, the USCG doesn't have time or resources to chase down hunters on Marine VHF, as long as they stay off certain channels. Inland, no one is going to know.
The issue that might arise is that some Marine VHF channels are reused inland, so a hunter, trucker, otherwise runs the risk of ending up on a channel that's been reused for LMR and possibly causing interference. Joe Public usually doesn't understand and doesn't care. No surprise there. Ignorance is bliss.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
4,434
Location
GA
I don't think you understand the many roles of the US Coast Guard. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you. You seem content to argue the point simply because you don't want to be wrong. That's OK, I'm very used to dealing with individuals with that sort of mindset.

US Code is the US Code, doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.

None the less, the USCG doesn't have time or resources to chase down hunters on Marine VHF, as long as they stay off certain channels. Inland, no one is going to know.
The issue that might arise is that some Marine VHF channels are reused inland, so a hunter, trucker, otherwise runs the risk of ending up on a channel that's been reused for LMR and possibly causing interference. Joe Public usually doesn't understand and doesn't care. No surprise there. Ignorance is bliss.[/QUOTE]

And you really shouldn't have to wait until the damage is done before you correct the problem.
 

toastycookies

Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
726
Location
the far east
That UCG web site only has a note from the ITU regulations that mentions one frequency. It has absolutely nothing to do with the FCC auctions and non-marine use of the old public coast frequencies in the US.

Multiple channels / frequencies are specified.

Either way it doesn't matter much to me.

Have a good day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top