# Coast Guard checked 15 miles out of Matagorda



## Makomecrazy (Mar 29, 2012)

Coast Guard boarded us 7-Sept. @ 15 miles SSE of the Matagorda Jetties. 
Safety shakedown and equipment verification. 
They deployed a smaller RIB out of the Cutter "Tiger Cat".

Lucky I had brought my ditch bag with me as "COCONUTS" flares were expired!
Anyone know what the fine is for that?
They also wanted to have a look to see if we had any illegal snapper on board. Of course, we would never keep an illegal, out of season fish.:clover: 
These guys were absolute professionals. Really nice guys that do us all a great service. 
Great day on the water with a good bunch of guys!

There was one boat that tried to get back in the jetties and avoid the CG, unfortunately for them, the CG had their 42' RIB boat with them that day, caught up with them about a mile outside the jetties. I wonder how that conversation went?


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

The only reason they were out there was to check RS violations - using safety check as probable cause. They do not need to be focused on RS. I have no issue on a equipment / boat / safety check -


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I don't know how messed up this country could be without CG and other LEO's to stop drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc.


But being stopped and boarded still strikes me as identical to stopping you on roadway for absolutely no reason, no probable cause. Guess it best I just don't go boating there. No matter how professional they are, it seems you are guilty until prove innocence.


I would absolutely treat them very professional, just admitting it makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

I've always heard them called RHIB. Crazy what those boats will do.

Rigid-hulled inflatable boat


----------



## hookemandcookem (Jul 14, 2010)

We got boarded out of Galveston two weeks ago for a "saftey check". They were obviously just checking for red snaps, dint even ask for our fishing license with other species on board.


----------



## Lostinpecos (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah, these safety checks couldnâ€™t be more obvious what they are really trying to do. What a waste of time and money.
Do the safety check at port before someone plans to go out would be more constructive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

TPWD or Coast Guard makes no difference, if it was really in name of safety why would they not simply post up at the boat ramps and do these checks before you get miles from shore?


Once I'm in the middle of the bay or 20 miles out it's a little late don't ya think? It's not like they make you go back to shore either. They simply write you a ticket and you go on your way still unsafe. 


If they are so concerned with my safety why not escort me back to a safe place if I am found in violation of the safety rules? 


Oh wait I figured it out, if you don't do the safety check then you can't use that as an excuse to check you for other illegal activity. The safety check is an excuse for a search.


----------



## Blue Devil 7 (Aug 25, 2005)

Yep, that's how the CG and TPWD go "fishing". It is not at all about safety.


----------



## 40marlin (Apr 29, 2015)

SeaOx 230C said:


> Once I'm in the middle of the bay or 20 miles out it's a little late don't ya think? It's not like they make you go back to shore either. They simply write you a ticket and you go on your way still unsafe.
> 
> If they are so concerned with my safety why not escort me back to a safe place if I am found in violation of the safety rules? .


How do you know that the CG would not escort you back if you were found to in a major violation.... unless you can speak from experience??? I sure do not know SOP for this as I have never been found to be in violation.

Is this a way to keep an eye out for illegal red snapper poaching... probably. But it should keep you much more vigilant to ensure that you are in compliance with any regulations knowing the that USCG could roll up on you at any time anywhere. Let them keep doing there job out there any enforcing safety rules because who knows, maybe that extra fire extinguisher or that set of new flares may very well save your life.


----------



## bryan28 (Aug 22, 2013)

I respect the CG and what they do but how do they have any right to check your fishing license or for illegal fish? They're not TPWD. When they checked me in Aug they never asked to see inside the ice chest or asked for a fishing license. They checked safety equipment and my drivers license against the boat registration to make sure it wasn't a stolen boat.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

40marlin said:


> How do you know that the CG would not escort you back if you were found to in a major violation.... unless you can speak from experience??? I sure do not know SOP for this as I have never been found to be in violation.
> 
> Is this a way to keep an eye out for illegal red snapper poaching... probably. But it should keep you much more vigilant to ensure that you are in compliance with any regulations knowing the that USCG could roll up on you at any time anywhere. Let them keep doing there job out there any enforcing safety rules because who knows, maybe that extra fire extinguisher or that set of new flares may very well save your life.


I am a responsible adult that does not need the Government to make sure I have a fire extinguisher, life preservers, first aid, etc... etc....

If you choose to go boating with out it or go with some one that does not carry that stuff then that is on you and them. I don't think keeping you safe from you is a good use of MY tax dollars. How about each of us be adults and responsible for our own safety.

Riddle me this if I'm already 50 miles offshore and say I have an expired fire extinguisher. If it is all about safety would it not make more sense for the "Safety check" be done at the dock than 50 mile out?

If it's about saving lives then it would safe far more lives to set up at or close to the dock and check boats before they leave. It would also cost a WHOLE lot less to do it that way than using multi million dollar vessels to check people for life jackets.

It's sad that today's Americans are so willing to give away their Rights in the name of perceived safety.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> It's sad that today's Americans are so willing to give away their Rights in the name of perceived safety.


Last I checked, fishing and boating are not in the Bill of Rights. Just like driving on the road, it's a privilege we have as Americans and it has rules and laws ARE applied. You don't like that...you're free to go buy a private island somewhere, set up your own form of government and live by your own standards. I'm as Republican and conservative as they come but even I know that the US Coast Guard has a duty to protect our coastline and our citizens. If this means a minor inconvenience while they check safety equipment and check that I'm not keeping fish illegally, then so be it. They have a tough job and there are MANY fishermen who venture out past 9 miles for their "state water 20lb snapper".


----------



## crismiller (May 1, 2013)

photofishin said:


> Last I checked, fishing and boating are not in the Bill of Rights. Just like driving on the road, it's a privilege we have as Americans and it has rules and laws ARE applied. You don't like that...you're free to go buy a private island somewhere, set up your own form of government and live by your own standards. I'm as Republican and conservative as they come but even I know that the US Coast Guard has a duty to protect our coastline and our citizens. If this means a minor inconvenience while they check safety equipment and check that I'm not keeping fish illegally, then so be it. They have a tough job and there are MANY fishermen who venture out past 9 miles for their "state water 20lb snapper".


Photofishin 
You are missing the point. If safety checks were so important they should sit at the jetties and check every OUTGOING boat. That would make sense. Checking 20 miles out is just a cover for illegal fish check. Which Iâ€™m ok with. Just call a spade a spade.
I know I will catch arrows on this comment, but as former military, Iâ€™m tired of hearing about what a tough job these coast guard guys have. Last time I checked we are not in a draft. And just like me they voluntarily joined the service. I didnâ€™t get my butt wiped every time I encounter a tough situation.

Saying all that, I have deep appreciation for anyone that raises their hand and joins the armed forces.


----------



## Lostinpecos (Jul 9, 2013)

I have no problems telling them what I have in my box. Itâ€™s when they donâ€™t believe you so they go on treating you like a criminal first rather than honor code. 
I think they should pay you if they get it wrong and give you a free snapper pass for wasting your time. 

I almost got boarded twice in less than 1 hr for another so called safety check. Kid wanted to come aboard even after I gave them the slip. Howâ€™s that for harassment. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

The Coast Guard is contracted to NMFS to check for illegal fish. I've Been fishing offshore in the GOM since I was 10. Been boarded many many times and never once was I treated with disrespect. IMO the Coasties are doing a great job.
Get you safety equipment together, don't keep illegal fish and you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

My rubb is CG would not assist my friend who had a dead boat 30 miles out and got locked up due to severe dehydration while trying to get underway . CG would not after numerous calls from wife on board of medical situation. But they were in bay doing maneuvers . This is fact. So checking RS is more important ? I made inquiries with CG in corpus and got a barrack Obama deflection on what CG responsibilities are to public ...I lost lot of respect at that point .


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

crismiller said:


> Photofishin
> You are missing the point. If safety checks were so important they should sit at the jetties and check every OUTGOING boat. That would make sense. Checking 20 miles out is just a cover for illegal fish check. Which Iâ€™m ok with. Just call a spade a spade.
> I know I will catch arrows on this comment, but as former military, Iâ€™m tired of hearing about what a tough job these coast guard guys have. Last time I checked we are not in a draft. And just like me they voluntarily joined the service. I didnâ€™t get my butt wiped every time I encounter a tough situation.
> 
> Saying all that, I have deep appreciation for anyone that raises their hand and joins the armed forces.


you forget...they're not just checking for illegal red snapper...they patrol the Gulf of MEXICO. There's a LOT of illegal smuggling that goes on. As others have said, if you aren't doing something illegal...just comply...they're just doing a thankless job.


----------



## TxRedman (Oct 22, 2013)

Last time I was boarded they did the safety inspection, asked about my fish but also asked about any observations I might have related to human smuggling. I really had no idea what I would be â€œlooking forâ€ related to that so I asked and they gave me some things to keep an eye out for. Apparently along the icw along this is a problem. All of the guys that says were very courteous and professional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

photofishin said:


> Last I checked, fishing and boating are not in the Bill of Rights. Just like driving on the road, it's a privilege we have as Americans and it has rules and laws ARE applied. You don't like that...you're free to go buy a private island somewhere, set up your own form of government and live by your own standards. I'm as Republican and conservative as they come but even I know that the US Coast Guard has a duty to protect our coastline and our citizens. If this means a minor inconvenience while they check safety equipment and check that I'm not keeping fish illegally, then so be it. They have a tough job and there are MANY fishermen who venture out past 9 miles for their "state water 20lb snapper".


The Constitution covers yo u on water too ya know. It's protections do not end at the shoreline.

You miss the point entirely. Doing a safety check is not "protecting the coastline" or protecting us from the bad guys. At best it is protecting YOU and those on YOUR vessel from YOUR own actions. In truth it used as an excuse to board people's vessels and search them. We don't allow that at home or on the highway why would we allow that just because it's a boat.

Too many People willing to allow the watering down of t heir Rights. To many people convinced we.must be protected from ourselves by the Government.

As for doing it in the name of snapper. Again you would not allow this at home or in your car on the highway why would you be ok with it on the water.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

"Just comply".....

Wow,.....that's all I can say to that.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> ..... if you aren't doing something illegal...just comply...they're just doing a thankless job.


Big Brother wants to put a camera in your bedroom, you should let them by your standards.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

I have been boarded several times over the years. Never have had a bad experience but I always tell the kids that board me that I don't appreciate it and consider it harassment.
I quit fishing out of freeport for that reason...too many cops wanting to get aboard and hassle me. One day the TPWD boarded me at the jetties and then one of the local cops with a boat tried to board me in the ICW! I sternly told them I had just been boarded and to leave me alone! I respect and appreciate LEO but I HATE big brother.

And to those who say comply without question, you are sheep and lemmings.:cheers:


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

" *I respect and appreciate LEO but I HATE big brother. "*
This is the best line I've read in this whole thread.


----------



## SaltwaterTom (Jun 23, 2013)

Do I like it when TPWD uses state resources to set up in strategic areas to catch people coming back from Federal waters with out-of-season snapper, enforcing a Federal law to protect the endangered species? Not really.... But I have no problem with the Coast Guard enforcing all laws in their jurisdiction. Some people need to be protected from the stupidity of their friends, families, and themselves. Kids have to wear PFD's, operators need to have proper and working safety gear, etc.... Are they often "fishing" for violations of other sorts, like poaching in Federal waters? Of course they are. It is *literally* their job. This can all be avoided by one of three methods; getting into office and pushing for a stop to all this (yeah, not gonna happen), bribing enough officials (I'm sorry, I meant contributing to their campaigns) to make it stop, or quit going into Federal waters.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

One other thing. It's that same government hassling us that says the red snapper are endangered. Anyone that fishes offshore much knows that's a pile of smelly BS!


----------



## Lostinpecos (Jul 9, 2013)

I think itâ€™s harassment when you have 8-10 fishing boats fishing on a semi public, â€œprivately paidâ€ snapper spot and Coast guards in their rafts doing â€œsafety checksâ€ 45 miles out. 
Yeah, itâ€™s distribution of illegal contraband going around with our kids.

Itâ€™s true they have been respectful but hell, leave us the F alone. We are here to fish and know the **** fishing rules. How do you get those **** black mar/scuffs marks off your rub rail when they bang up against your boat? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> The Constitution covers yo u on water too ya know. It's protections do not end at the shoreline.
> 
> You miss the point entirely. Doing a safety check is not "protecting the coastline" or protecting us from the bad guys. At best it is protecting YOU and those on YOUR vessel from YOUR own actions. In truth it used as an excuse to board people's vessels and search them. We don't allow that at home or on the highway why would we allow that just because it's a boat.
> 
> ...


Go ahead and be the idiot who decides to "push your rights" to the boundary. Me, I'll be polite and let them board my boat. As mentioned, they're doing their job. Don't be a "Richard" or you'll likely find yourself in handcuffs for doing so. I find it hilarious the number of people who puff up their chests online when they obviously wouldn't do the same in person.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Big Brother wants to put a camera in your bedroom, you should let them by your standards.


Last I checked, my bedroom is on private property and the Gulf of Mexico is NOT. Some of you remind me of the nonsensical retards with cell phone videos after jr is shot by the police for attacking an officer blaming the police.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

mstrelectricman said:


> I have been boarded several times over the years. Never have had a bad experience but I always tell the kids that board me that I don't appreciate it and consider it harassment.
> I quit fishing out of freeport for that reason...too many cops wanting to get aboard and hassle me. One day the TPWD boarded me at the jetties and then one of the local cops with a boat tried to board me in the ICW! I sternly told them I had just been boarded and to leave me alone! I respect and appreciate LEO but I HATE big brother.
> 
> And to those who say comply without question, you are sheep and lemmings.:cheers:


actually we're law abiding citizens who realize that law enforcement has a job to do.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> "Just comply".....
> 
> Wow,.....that's all I can say to that.


By the way, Sandra Bland's family wants you to sign her sympathy card


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

photofishin said:


> Go ahead and be the idiot who decides to "push your rights" to the boundary. Me, I'll be polite and let them board my boat. As mentioned, they're doing their job. Don't be a "Richard" or you'll likely find yourself in handcuffs for doing so. I find it hilarious the number of people who puff up their chests online when they obviously wouldn't do the same in person.


As normal on here when some one cannot present a rational fact based argument they call people names. You throw out "idiot" and "Richard" you assume I would be rude to them.

Once you go to insults and assumption your side of the conversation gets less and less meaningful. That will not help any one.

I will not join you in the angry insults game, you can be the winner.

You may not realize it and your post kind a demonstrates it, however you can state your peace, express your opinion and not be rude. You might try it some time, it may take some practice but you can do it.

LEO is not all powerful you can express yourself to them without being disrespectful to them personally. If LEO's put people in cuffs for expressing disagreement it spells doom for our Rights as written down in the Constitution. You seem to be OK with that( I may be mistaken hard to tell) and that really saddens me that people are fine with that conduct from LEO.

Please remember that expecting your Constitutional Rights to be respected and insisting that they are is not "pushing your rights". We as US Citizens all have and deserve an expectation that our Rights will be respected by Government and not watered down. To many of the People are so willing to let their Rights be disregarded and that more than anything else is what will be the end our Constitutional Republic.

Have a good day Photo, I hope you and yours are blessed.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> As normal on here when some one cannot present a rational fact based argument they call people names. You throw out "idiot" and "Richard" you assume I would be rude to them.
> 
> Once you go to insults and assumption your side of the conversation gets less and less meaningful. That will not help any one.
> 
> ...


I won't mask "insults"...and it's pretty telling when you're so sensitive that you think this was specifically at you. My comment was for ANYONE who thinks they can be openly disrespectful to law enforcement who are clearly just doing their jobs. If I had insulted you specifically, you'd know it because I don't pull punches. 
As for our rights as citizens, I'm the first to stand up if they're being violated...but your ignorance of your rights and the law does not excuse your open nonsense on this forum. https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Kinda like a cop pulling you over on the highway to do a "safety check" of your seatbelts, then writes you a ticket for paying your taxes late. 

Of the coasties I know, they hate being fish police, but have orders. Overall if you are not doing anything wrong law enforcement on the land and water should just leave you alone. To many making criminals where there are just average Joe's minding there own business.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

photofishin said:


> I won't mask "insults"...and it's pretty telling when you're so sensitive that you think this was specifically at you. My comment was for ANYONE who thinks they can be openly disrespectful to law enforcement who are clearly just doing their jobs. * If I had insulted you specifically, you'd know it because I don't pull punches. *
> As for our rights as citizens, I'm the first to stand up if they're being violated...but your ignorance of your rights and the law does not excuse your open nonsense on this forum. https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/


Photo you quoted my post and gave the response below. Now tell me again why shouldn't I think you are talking to me? You talk of puffing ones chest online....based on your post above there is only one person that I see doing that and it ain't me...â€¦.

"*Originally Posted by photofishin ***
_*Go ahead and be the idiot who decides to "push your rights" to the boundary. Me, I'll be polite and let them board my boat. As mentioned, they're doing their job. Don't be a "Richard" or you'll likely find yourself in handcuffs for doing so. I find it hilarious the number of people who puff up their chests online when they obviously wouldn't do the same in person."*_

Photo, I am well aware of how boarding of vessels by TPWD and the US Coast Guard came to be and the court cases that set the precedent.

Quit assuming that you are the only person with knowledge of the issue.

Quit assuming that because some people can't express themselves, (or be disagreed with) without getting angry and saying ugly things that no one can.

I don't think the precedent should ever have been allowed to be set in the first place. There are lot's of precedents that have been set by the Courts that I believe are contrary to the Constitution and what the Framers intended.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> Photo you quoted my post and gave the response below. Now tell me again why shouldn't I think you are talking to me? You talk of puffing ones chest online....based on your post above there is only one person that I see doing that and it ain't me...â€¦.
> 
> "*Originally Posted by photofishin ***
> _*Go ahead and be the idiot who decides to "push your rights" to the boundary. Me, I'll be polite and let them board my boat. As mentioned, they're doing their job. Don't be a "Richard" or you'll likely find yourself in handcuffs for doing so. I find it hilarious the number of people who puff up their chests online when they obviously wouldn't do the same in person."*_
> ...


yet here you are arguing your "rights" when it's obvious you have no clue as to what those rights actually are. I'd suggest you stay off the water if you get so hot and bothered every time you see a Coast Guard boat that you can't enjoy yourself. I go out on the water to relax...not whine and complain every time the Coast Guard or Fish and Wildlife do their jobs. Maybe you need a less stressful hobby rather than trolling 2cool to complain. Last I checked, unless you have some miracle gene that let you be alive in 1776, you have no clue as to the real intentions of the Framers....other than what is actually written on paper. I'm inclined to go with what's written rather than what Hillary tells me I should be entitled to.

To clarify...since you obviously didn't read-

_Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission._


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

photofishin said:


> yet here you are arguing your "rights" when it's obvious you have no clue as to what those rights actually are. I'd suggest you stay off the water if you get so hot and bothered every time you see a Coast Guard boat that you can't enjoy yourself. I go out on the water to relax...not whine and complain every time the Coast Guard or Fish and Wildlife do their jobs. Maybe you need a less stressful hobby rather than trolling 2cool to complain. Last I checked, unless you have some miracle gene that let you be alive in 1776, you have no clue as to the real intentions of the Framers....other than what is actually written on paper. I'm inclined to go with what's written rather than what Hillary tells me I should be entitled to.
> 
> To clarify...since you obviously didn't read-
> 
> _Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission._


Photo as I said I am aware and have read the statutes and court cases long before this thread existed. That does not mean I and others agree with them.

I have also read the Constitution the Federalist Papers and several other pertinent writings of the Founders. So I think I have a decent understanding of what they had in mind.

Photo,
As disagreeing with you about this issue appears to be upsetting you to the point you seem a bit angry I will bid this thread farewell.

Photo I truly hope you and yours are Blessed have a wonderful day.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

I know that I'm gona take some heat for this but if so many people weren't keeping illegal snapper, the Coast Guard wouldn't be checking that far offshore.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

I wonâ€™t throw my fellow angler wanting to catch a public resource - but will throw shade at a corrupt political agenda who limits the first part of my sentence. CG is bring directed to do â€œ choresâ€


----------



## jamesw (Dec 1, 2014)

Pausing on all of the back and forth over enforcing fishing regs - I really think the outbound safety checks are a great idea! The times I have been boarded it has always been inbound in the ICW or at the Freeport intersection area. I think if the CG did the safety checks on the way out and sent people back to the ramp if they don't have the required equipment - that would be a good step. Freeport Marina lends out child PFD's and I'm sure other marinas and bait shops in the area could take up the call to lend or rent .

Cheers
James


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

SeaOx 230C said:


> Photo as I said I am aware and have read the statutes and court cases long before this thread existed. That does not mean I and others agree with them.
> 
> I have also read the Constitution the Federalist Papers and several other pertinent writings of the Founders. So I think I have a decent understanding of what they had in mind.
> 
> ...


Funny how you can infer "anger" here when you don't know me. You're arguing a point that has ZERO merit legally and has precedent back to the 1700's....as I mentioned...the US Coast Guard is doing their job. They may be boarding you for training purposes, to check for illegal fish, for drugs, for human smuggling etc. You don't like that, sell your boat and fish on the shore. I, for one, simply obey the law and don't try to change things I have no ability to change. By the way, I'd gladly buy you a cup of coffee if you truly want to get to know me versus rant against me on the Internet.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Well I didn't do a count but did read through the whole thread and the folks that believe this is government (big brother) over-reach are in the majority. Like I said above I do respect and support LEO but hate big brother...and I don't really like sheep meat. I was raised on beef, pork and venison.
There was a comment above about the poaching of the snapper resource. How would anyone determine that as fact? Like I said, for those that actually fish os a lot, we know the feds are fos when it comes to knowledge of actual snapper populations. I suspect the folks on this thread that are so mad about we the people being upset about over-reach don't even have an os boat!


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Calmday said:


> I know that I'm gona take some heat for this but if so many people weren't keeping illegal snapper, the Coast Guard wouldn't be checking that far offshore.


If you write enough laws, everyone becomes a criminal.


----------



## Lostinpecos (Jul 9, 2013)

So whoâ€™s saying so many people are keeping illegal fish? 

I dunno, so many people are taking more than their share of game animals too I suppose. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Makomecrazy (Mar 29, 2012)

Drundel said:


> I've always heard them called RHIB. Crazy what those boats will do.
> 
> Rigid-hulled inflatable boat


Thanks! RHIB it is. I stand corrected!

Also, a friend of mine says that the CG caught an unlucky angler out there the same day. Fine was rumored to be $500.00 and $50.00 per fish.

Again, nothing first hand. Post up if anyone has first hand info!


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Photo, there is a fine line between respecting authority and respecting yourself. You claimed that some of us are writing that we are bad arses and would resist. I stated real early that I would treat them professionally. The middle of the GOM out of sight of everyone and everything is not the place to mess with the CG. Yes, out there the CG can bend me over, but they can not force me to LIKE it. 



You got very insulting this same way about Harding street too. Overall we can be supportive of LEO's but still want to double check facts and keep them honest. Facts later proved you were wrong about Harding street. To me that one was much more obvious than this. The CG isn't murdering anyone that I am aware of, but there are times they push too far. Although the average post on this thread may be that the CG goes too far, I think that we are supportive of their overall job.


Nature gave us a brain to use. We don't have to blindly support everything without question.


----------



## padrefigure (Aug 22, 2006)

Well, I will wade into this late, but what the heck. Getting checked by State or Federal Game Wardens, Coast Guard or any other law enforcement personnel is part of the privilege of fishing. It does not matter if you like, approve, appreciate or become amused--it is just a fact of life. If you want to change it, run for office, get elected, propose legislation and push it through. Now if a fisherman chooses to venture into federal waters to catch and keep red snapper out of season, it is against the law. It does not matter if you approve of, agree with, or support the law, keeping game out of season is a violation. If you are on this board and I dare say, if you are capable of navigating to a snapper hole more than 9 nautical miles offshore, any argument of ignorance goes out the window. So take it for what it is--you knew it was illegal, you chose to do it any way, plain and simple. If you want to dress it up, call it civil disobedience but don't play the victim card. It's like the speed limit--if you go too fast, you will get caught eventually. And if you want to keep driving you will pay the fine and decide if it was worth it or not. Don't dress it up in righteous indignation.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

padrefigure said:


> Well, I will wade into this late, but what the heck. Getting checked by State or Federal Game Wardens, Coast Guard or any other law enforcement personnel is part of the privilege of fishing. It does not matter if you like, approve, appreciate or become amused--it is just a fact of life. If you want to change it, run for office, get elected, propose legislation and push it through. Now if a fisherman chooses to venture into federal waters to catch and keep red snapper out of season, it is against the law. It does not matter if you approve of, agree with, or support the law, keeping game out of season is a violation. If you are on this board and I dare say, if you are capable of navigating to a snapper hole more than 9 nautical miles offshore, any argument of ignorance goes out the window. So take it for what it is--you knew it was illegal, you chose to do it any way, plain and simple. If you want to dress it up, call it civil disobedience but don't play the victim card. It's like the speed limit--if you go too fast, you will get caught eventually. And if you want to keep driving you will pay the fine and decide if it was worth it or not. Don't dress it up in righteous indignation.


thank you


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Nature gave us a brain to use.


Ignorance of the law doesn't seem to be using your brain. It's one thing to argue a no knock case...quite another to spout online about your "rights are being violated" only to find out when you look at maritime law that you actually don't have the same rights you do on land. 
There are already laws which govern abuse of power. Let's focus on following the law versus complaining about things we obviously have ZERO control over.


----------



## Lostinpecos (Jul 9, 2013)

This thread has been blown way out of proportion. Itâ€™s aggravating and yes it cuts into a few minutes of your fishing time but LEO have been nothing but cordial through the process. 

On the plus side, I donâ€™t mind one bit fishing by them. Gives off a sense of security.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

From above yes - but since I cannot fish ....Iâ€™ll ***** about it. .


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

Just wait until they start doing weapons checks or even tobacco checks at the rate we are moving to supreme nanny state.


----------



## Makomecrazy (Mar 29, 2012)

BATWING said:


> Just wait until they start doing weapons checks or even tobacco checks at the rate we are moving to supreme nanny state.


Captain of COCONUTS did declare a firearm on board. They asked where it was located and then asked that none of us go toward that location without notifying them in advance. Again, perfectly professional.

They also answered a few of my questions about my PLB and EPIRB. They confirmed what I thought the process would be in the event that I activated it.
IE: Beacon activated, they match signal to my registration, call contact numbers I provided. If the contacts can't confirm I am not offshore, or if they confirm that I am, CG sends rescue to beacon signal. They said that chances of positive outcome/recovery go up exponentially with a properly registered and operational PLB/EPIRB.

I have no problem whatsoever be stopped and checked. I thanked them for their service and noted that as hot as it was that day, it must be miserable to be dressed in those uniforms with the BP vests and life preservers.


----------



## rringstaff (Jul 25, 2014)

photofishin said:


> you forget...they're not just checking for illegal red snapper...they patrol the Gulf of MEXICO. There's a LOT of illegal smuggling that goes on. As others have said, if you aren't doing something illegal...just comply...they're just doing a thankless job.


you made a claim of being very conservative, yet every post you make contradicts that.


----------



## marlin lane (Mar 4, 2012)

give it a rest-be thankful that they are there if you ever need them-have been boarded several time and have found them to be courteous, respectful and helpful-


----------



## stammster - temporary (Jul 20, 2009)

I wonder if they were also checking for kill switch lanyards for those operating boats under 26â€™. Or is that not enforceable beyond 9 miles?


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

stammster said:


> I wonder if they were also checking for kill switch lanyards for those operating boats under 26â€™. Or is that not enforceable beyond 9 miles?


Thatâ€™s a Texas law, past 9 miles you donâ€™t have to wear it


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

To all the guys defending the practice because there's a law and court cases allowing it, and they're just doing their job (and being polite about it), I wonder how you feel about New York cops politely doing stop and frisks, or New Jersey cops politely arresting people and confiscating their guns because there's laws that tell them they can, and the cops are just doing their jobs?

Throughout American history, politicians have passed laws that are in violation of, or severely restrict our constitutional rights. Because they can- and can get away with it. And it seems to be accelerating since 9/11, though I think that's more of an excuse to exert more (constitutionally questionable) control over the masses than a genuine improvement in our security. 

Edit: I'd also mention that I'm not too keen on the idea of Border Patrol setting up roadblocks 60-100 miles away from the border and using the pretense of border protection to stop and search anyone they choose, as if that person just crossed over. Just another example of an erosion of our rights- done because the law allows it, and they're just doing their jobs.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

rringstaff said:


> you made a claim of being very conservative, yet every post you make contradicts that.


Every post I have made matches our legal and constitutional rights...you seem to be misinformed as to what conservatism means.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

impulse said:


> To all the guys defending the practice because there's a law and court cases allowing it, and they're just doing their job (and being polite about it), I wonder how you feel about New York cops politely doing stop and frisks, or New Jersey cops politely arresting people and confiscating their guns because there's laws that tell them they can, and the cops are just doing their jobs?
> 
> Throughout American history, politicians have passed laws that are in violation of, or severely restrict our constitutional rights. Because they can- and can get away with it. And it seems to be accelerating since 9/11, though I think that's more of an excuse to exert more (constitutionally questionable) control over the masses than a genuine improvement in our security.
> 
> Edit: I'd also mention that I'm not too keen on the idea of Border Patrol setting up roadblocks 60-100 miles away from the border and using the pretense of border protection to stop and search anyone they choose, as if that person just crossed over. Just another example of an erosion of our rights- done because the law allows it, and they're just doing their jobs.


you seem to misunderstand the difference between state and federal law and the Bill of Rights and how it's interpreted. As previously mentioned, the US Coast Guard has the legal authority to do search and seizure even without probable cause on the water.


----------



## Punchingclowns (Jun 21, 2016)

Last year I was fishing 9.5-10NM out. SE Lump area. Caught some very nice Mangroves and of course RS. 2 other boats were out there with us, 1 was a local charter and the other a private boat. The private boat and me were chatting during our drifts but the charter was 100-150ft away and then all of sudden took off. 20-30 minutes later a Dolphin races out and circles above and then vanishes. I didn't think anything of it till another 20-30 minutes goes by and here comes a Defender. They roll right up to me, I wasn't the first boat to them. They came out on the deck, 4-5 people and the questions started. RS and how was I doing. I explained my catches, pointed at my GoPro that was still running, let them know I had a loaded firearm on deck and once they figured out I only had Mangroves I added a remark, "when y'all get back in make sure to tell -------- Charters I was clean but I will be watching them..... He smiled and said have a great day. 

The CG has always been very very nice, professional and they are an asset to us on the coast. But for the amount of money that Dolphin and Defender burned up that day in fuel alone is crazy. 

I protected the Charter's name on this post because I wasn't 100% they had said anything but I am pretty sure they did. Big swing and miss on their part.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

photofishin said:


> you seem to misunderstand the difference between state and federal law and the Bill of Rights and how it's interpreted. As previously mentioned, the US Coast Guard has the legal authority to do search and seizure even without probable cause on the water.


everyone knows this

What some have a problem with, myself included, is search and seizure without probable cause in any case, anywhere. Having legal authority to do something does not make it right.

I would not agree with police stopping cars and doing random "safety checks" then writing tickets for offences other then what they stopped you for, same as I do not agree with it on the water.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Jolly Roger said:


> everyone knows this
> 
> What some have a problem with, myself included, is search and seizure without probable cause in any case, anywhere. Having legal authority to do something does not make it right.
> 
> I would not agree with police stopping cars and doing random "safety checks" then writing tickets for offences other then what they stopped you for, same as I do not agree with it on the water.


I get that...however I remind you of the serenity prayer...what does complaining on 2cool do about it? 
To me, it's not a rampant issue and maritime law is clear and has been for well over 200 years.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Whitebassfisher said:


> .....
> Nature gave us a brain to use. .....





photofishin said:


> Ignorance of the law doesn't seem to be using your brain. It's one thing to argue a no knock case...quite another to spout online about your *"rights are being violated"* only to find out when you look at maritime law that you actually don't have the same rights you do on land.
> There are already laws which govern abuse of power. Let's focus on following the law versus complaining about things we obviously have ZERO control over.


You're using supposed quotes of mine to answer me above. I double dog dare you to find anywhere on this thread where I said that. Do you know how to read the English language?


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

photofishin said:


> you seem to misunderstand the difference between state and federal law and the Bill of Rights and how it's interpreted. As previously mentioned, the US Coast Guard has the legal authority to do search and seizure even without probable cause on the water.


_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

impulse said:


> _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


Sure, someone, somewhere along the line "interpreted" that to allow the USCG to violate that extremely clearly delineated right. That doesn't make it okay.

Any more than New Jersey's gun laws, or "Border Patrol" checkpoints 100 miles from any border. Our freedoms are eroding away. What's next? Border Patrol inspections in Nebraska? USCG inspecting my boat on the highway? NSA looking into my Facebook account? Oh, wait...


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

impulse said:


> Sure, someone, somewhere along the line "interpreted" that to allow the USCG to violate that extremely clearly delineated right. That doesn't make it okay.
> 
> Any more than New Jersey's gun laws, or "Border Patrol" checkpoints 100 miles from any border. Our freedoms are eroding away. What's next? Border Patrol inspections in Nebraska? USCG inspecting my boat on the highway? NSA looking into my Facebook account? Oh, wait...


Once again, please use your brain versus what you "think you know". I linked to it before...here it is again. Please actually read it so you understand the law and your actual rights. https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I think most if not all here agree that the CG has the right.
I think many, and I know myself, realize CG can board me, but still don't like it, no matter how legal it is. Aren't we allowed to have thoughts and opinions, or does Big Brother not allow that?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I think most if not all here agree that the CG has the right.
> I think many, and I know myself, realize CG can board me, but still don't like it, no matter how legal it is. Aren't we allowed to have thoughts and opinions, or does Big Brother not allow that?


You're allowed to have thoughts or opinions; me, I'll stick to doing things that make me happy versus complaining about things that I don't control and frankly, that I feel are petty and whiney.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

photofishin said:


> You're allowed to have thoughts or opinions; me, I'll stick to doing things that make me happy versus complaining about things that I don't control and frankly, that I feel are petty and whiney.


That sounds fair to me.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

photofishin said:


> You're allowed to have thoughts or opinions; me, I'll stick to doing things that make me happy versus complaining about things that I don't control and frankly, that I feel are petty and whiney.


LOL


----------



## gordaskipper (Feb 26, 2010)

*gordaskipper*



photofishin said:


> You're allowed to have thoughts or opinions; me, I'll stick to doing things that make me happy versus complaining about things that I don't control and frankly, that I feel are petty and whiney.


Does it really matter if your not in any violation, who gives a rat's *** pull me over, it sends the message out to the real violators...probably my question is what the difference between them and the game wardens in Colorado river? I've know one of them for 20yrs he used to check my cooler on the pier repeatedly and one day he didn't. However he has boarded my boat a lot, training the youngsters acted like he never met me? I did not take offense however he has a job to do, was on my boat all of 2 minutes...


----------



## ShawnQ (May 21, 2004)

Just a coastie here, stopping in, feeling the love! Lol
6yrs active, 5yrs reserve (still reserve), 8 of those years in Galveston. 

Politics and Constitution aside...
I never wish ill on anyone, but there are a few people who are one bad day away from flipping their mindset about the USCG. Much like the Police, a lot of people don't necessarily like us until they are directly and positively affected by us.

I rest easy at night knowing that I've never boarded anyone without the utmost professionalism. I generally leave them smiling. I may have wasted their time, but I don't think I ruined their day. Just remember, that same kid who is asking to see your life-jackets (for the 3rd time this season) would eagerly wake up in the middle of the night and put his life on the line to get you or a loved one out of a bind. We (the USCG) literally does this EVERY DAY.

There is a TON of mis-information in this thread.

I've rescued a LOT more people than I've written violations for. Written warnings for minor things are common amongst everyone I have ever worked with in the CG. I hate the law enforcement side of things, but it is part of my job (more so when I was active). I have used it to educate many new boaters, and even some who have been boating for decades...so I wont call it a waste.

As a fisherman, I know the snapper situation is nonsense. I've fought for our rights like many of you have, hoping to get OUR resources back to us. That is above my pay-grade, unfortunately.

A few things I saw that stuck out:

-The CG does conduct dockside safety inspections. In fact, the Auxiliary (basically the CG version of a Volunteer force) will do a safety inspection of anyone's vessel if requested. I agree, boarding every boater at the ramp would yield a higher percentage of prevention...but it's not feasible due to manpower, time, and the fact that many boats aren't at a public ramp.

- The 45' boat is not a RHIB. It's collar is not inflatable, but made of foam

-"Good afternoon sir or ma'am, without reaching for or touching, do you have any weapons on-board?" That's supposed to be the first thing we say to every recreational boat we board. Not because there is a high occurrence of gun smuggling, but for our own safety. If you have one, we'll typically just ask you to stay clear of where it is. Sometimes we'll unload them while we're aboard.

- Did the CG damage your boat and put rub marks on the rub rail? Polish will usually take it out. If you don't want to fool with it and it's an eyesore, you can call Sector and file a damage claim...or you could've spoken with the crew who did it and they would have helped you get the necessary information. 

-Fishing licenses are TPWD. Federal regulations are what we're enforcing. 

-Some of us ask if you caught anything because we are fisherman and are genuinely interested in hearing about the fishing. Some of us have pretty good first hand knowledge of where they're biting. Talk to us, it makes it a more pleasant atmosphere. We're not any more comfortable taking 20min of your time than you are when we're on your boat. Silence and nervousness make it awkward for everyone.

-If you have a major safety violation, a boarding officer CAN terminate your voyage. They can escort you back to the ramp. There is some discretion that allows the BO use his judgement.

- I've handed out whistles to dozens of people with no sound producing device. Most of us don't want to write a violation. We'd rather fix the issue immediately if possible. 

- if your boat breaks down and there is no risk of harm or property damage, you may not get 'rescued' right away. They will usually put out a MARB (Marine Assistance Request Broadcast) asking anyone in the area to help if possible. They'll also call commercial towing/salvage for you. We are actually hindering commerce if we go and give fuel, jump starts, and tows to every boater who needs them. We're stepping on the toes of the companies who do this. It is also poor use of resources. Imagine if we were all out doing non-emergency tows and a cruise ship collided with a head boat. There are very few people at a CG station. We are limited, so sometimes Sector will prioritize. I have a fellow Coastie who was out of fuel about 25mi out of Freeport with 7ppl on a 30'+ boat, drifting. He tried to get the CG to help, they didn't. They offered to contact SeaTow, who happened to be doing emergency maintenance on their boat. If there was a known health issue, no lights with nighttime coming, medical emergency, etc...it may be different. To the gentleman who said a guy was left waiting while dehydrated, that sounds like a communication breakdown. That's definitely a health hazard. I assure you those guys doing 'maneuvers' had no idea there was someone in need, as they dont get the call. Sector receives them and then tasks the station and boat crews (similar to a cop at a donut shop. He doesn't know there's a robbery until dispatch sends him).
I will say that elderly, children, high heat, bad weather, dark/sun-setting, diabetics with no meds, or any medical condition are generally things that will make Sector send a response boat to a non-emergency sooner rather than later.

- I don't know everything, but I know if I called the Sector in Houston and said "send a helicopter to check a boat for illegal snapper", they'd probably laugh and hang up. I doubt a charter in Freeport has the leverage to get a dolphin in the air for a few snapper. Oil slick, SAR, yes...but I don't think so for snapper. We train daily. They were likely in the area, possibly doing an area familiarization flight for a new pilot so he/she could learn their local busy spots? Or maybe there was an overdue vessel that had a description which looked similar to the boats at the SE lump. Sector sent the bird to verify. The response boat or cutter was likely coincidentally doing fisheries boardings in the same area.

- We hand out violations, not fines. A $500 fine and $50/fish sounds like a TPWD or NOAA deal. We do work with them, sometimes even have them on our boats...but that wasn't likely a CG fine. When we write a violation, we have no idea what the 'ticket cost' is. It goes up to a hearing officer and they make those decisions. I do know that for small issues, some hearing officers will throw out a violation if you show proof of correcting the discrepancy (i.e., a receipt showing a new horn).

Any questions? Ask away. I'll help if I can. In the meantime, this wind needs to give us a break so we can go fishing! 



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cru (May 24, 2004)

Greenie sent! Thanks for keeping us safe out there.


----------



## ShawnQ (May 21, 2004)

I forgot to mention, I've been boarded by the Coast Guard a handful of times as well. I don't bother mentioning I'm in the Coast Guard until the very end. Commands and crews change, and their focus always changes as well. Life safety is always priority 1, but it's interesting to see what they're focusing on at different stations and different times. Snapper, shrimp, charters, always changing.

Shortly after I bought my current boat, I was informed that I was missing a garbage placard. Oops!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## 40marlin (Apr 29, 2015)

What CNN is not reporting is that the USCG found a couple of illegal red snappers in addition to the the ultra-rare white snappers. The USCG also found them to also be out of safety compliance and terminated the voyage.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/us/coast-guard-major-drug-bust-trnd/index.html


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

Makomecrazy said:


> Coast Guard boarded us 7-Sept. @ 15 miles SSE of the Matagorda Jetties.
> Safety shakedown and equipment verification.
> They deployed a smaller RIB out of the Cutter "Tiger Cat".
> 
> ...


I will try to answer each question on this thread.

You asked about the fine. The Coast Guard enforcement team will enter the information on violations into a computer system and send it to the Violations Case Coordination Center (VCCC) VCCC will look at the vessels history. If it has a history of violations, they will forward the violations to the hearing officer. The hearing officer will send a penalty letter. The max on the fines is obnoxious, so the letter will say something like the maximum penalty is $10,000 I have levied a $250 penalty, you may dispute this by doing XXXXXXX.

If the boat does not have a violation history, the VCCC will send a letter that says the maximum penalty is $10,000. You can get out of a penalty by passing a courtesy safety check and showing us proof or by purchasing new flares and showing us proof. That's the short of it. The Coast Guard is not interested in penalty money, we are interested in your safety. It costs us more to process violations than we ever make in penalties.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

bryan28 said:


> I respect the CG and what they do but how do they have any right to check your fishing license or for illegal fish?


No, only your recreational HMS permit if you are HMS fishing.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

SeaOx 230C said:


> TPWD or Coast Guard makes no difference, if it was really in name of safety why would they not simply post up at the boat ramps and do these checks before you get miles from shore?
> 
> Once I'm in the middle of the bay or 20 miles out it's a little late don't ya think? It's not like they make you go back to shore either. They simply write you a ticket and you go on your way still unsafe.
> 
> ...


Wow, there a lot to latch onto here. Let me do my best. I'll start with posting up at ramps. As crowded and slow as most ramps move, I can assure you a lot of boaters would take issue with us slowing them down even more at frustratingly slow ramps. Moreover there's no way to enforce federal fisheries laws or BUI laws for example on a boat that's not underway and/or hasn't been underway.

For minor violations we let the boat continue its voyage. For especially hazardous conditions we will terminate the voyage and escort the boat to safety.

The Coast Guard enforces a myriad of laws from safety, to fisheries, smuggling, trafficking, pollution and more. So, it's not all about safety.

Let me know if you have anymore questions. I'll do my best to answer.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

mrsh978 said:


> My rubb is CG would not assist my friend who had a dead boat 30 miles out and got locked up due to severe dehydration while trying to get underway . CG would not after numerous calls from wife on board of medical situation. But they were in bay doing maneuvers . This is fact. So checking RS is more important ? I made inquiries with CG in corpus and got a barrack Obama deflection on what CG responsibilities are to public ...I lost lot of respect at that point .


I wish I had more details on that case. How did they end up getting help and making it back in? Having adequate hydration, the medical condition of the passengers and their apprehension are all factors we can take into consideration in determining whether to launch or to let commercial providers take the case.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

SeaOx 230C said:


> As normal on here when some one cannot present a rational fact based argument they call people names. You throw out "idiot" and "Richard" you assume I would be rude to them.
> 
> Once you go to insults and assumption your side of the conversation gets less and less meaningful. That will not help any one.
> 
> ...


I will touch briefly on the constitutional rights issue. First you need to understand that a CG boarding is not in and of itself a search. The courts through centuries of rulings have established that a boarding is an administrative inspection, not a search. In some ways it's legally similar to the commercial vehicle checks that State DOTs do on the big rigs.

Your 4th amendment protections remain intact throughout the boarding. You have a right to privacy in the private places on the boat. That includes your person and purses, handbags etc. The CG cannot search them unless there are grounds for a warrantless search. Google can give you info about warrantless searches. I would, but I type a bit slowly and have been out of law enforcement for too long to do it justice.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

Kenner21 said:


> Thatâ€™s a Texas law, past 9 miles you donâ€™t have to wear it


Hola brother Kenner. Fancy seeing you over here! The most recent CG Authorization Act has provisions for mandatory kill switch wear for all boaters on boats less than 26', so it's coming at some point in the future.


----------



## Dranrab (Sep 6, 2013)

ShawnQ said:


> I forgot to mention, I've been boarded by the Coast Guard a handful of times as well. I don't bother mentioning I'm in the Coast Guard until the very end. Commands and crews change, and their focus always changes as well. Life safety is always priority 1, but it's interesting to see what they're focusing on at different stations and different times. Snapper, shrimp, charters, always changing.
> 
> Shortly after I bought my current boat, I was informed that I was missing a garbage placard. Oops!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


I never let the state or the CG know who I am before the boarding. I rarely let them know even afterwards. I have always been treated very professionally. The last time a state agency came alongside they were there for about a minute and said it's obvious you have your act together, have a good day.


----------



## 40marlin (Apr 29, 2015)

USCG Safe Boating D8 - Thank you for coming on here and setting the record straight. The information you have provided is incredibly useful and the work the USCG does saves lives each and every day. Eternally grateful for each and every USCG servicemen's willingness to serve others and put their lives on the line each and every day.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

USCG Safe Boating D8 said:


> I will touch briefly on the constitutional rights issue. First you need to understand that a CG boarding is not in and of itself a search. The courts through centuries of rulings have established that a boarding is an administrative inspection, not a search. In some ways it's legally similar to the commercial vehicle checks that State DOTs do on the big rigs.
> 
> Your 4th amendment protections remain intact throughout the boarding. You have a right to privacy in the private places on the boat. That includes your person and purses, handbags etc. The CG cannot search them unless there are grounds for a warrantless search. Google can give you info about warrantless searches. I would, but I type a bit slowly and have been out of law enforcement for too long to do it justice.


Thank you for.your service.

As I posted before I am well aware of how we got here. Court cases and precedent.

I don't agree with it. I believe it's a watering down of the Constitution.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

USCG Safe Boating D8 said:


> Wow, there a lot to latch onto here. Let me do my best. I'll start with posting up at ramps. As crowded and slow as most ramps move, I can assure you a lot of boaters would take issue with us slowing them down even more at frustratingly slow ramps. Moreover there's no way to enforce federal fisheries laws or BUI laws for example on a boat that's not underway and/or hasn't been underway.
> 
> For minor violations we let the boat continue its voyage. For especially hazardous conditions we will terminate the voyage and escort the boat to safety.
> 
> ...


This is my point. The inspection is the excuse used to fish for other more serious crimes without any reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed.


----------

