The world is absolutely bonkers

**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

Comment by November 13, 2006
**Please distribute this information to interested parties in the U.S.
and Canada**

The United States Coast Guard, Ninth District, is proposing to conduct
live fire training throughout the Great Lakes. Great Lakes United has
serious concerns that gunfire exercises on the Great Lakes will put the
safety of the public and the environment at risk, and urges comment into
this serious issue. Please note: this alert does not question whether
Coast Guard personnel should be trained to handle weapons, rather whether
significant portions of the Great Lakes should be designated for live
fire military training.

Background:
The Ninth Coast Guard District is proposing the establishment of 34 live
fire safety zones throughout the Great Lakes, covering a combined total
of 2,376 square miles or 2.5% of the Lakes surface area. The safety
zones will be used to train Coast Guard personnel in maritime law
enforcement, national defense and homeland security using live 7.62mm
NATO rounds fired from lightweight automatic weapons. The proposed zones
would be permanent, and at this time are proposed for use “a few times in
a calendar year… with each exercise lasting approximately 4-6 hours”. The
Coast Guard plans to alert the public in advance of all live gunfire
exercises through broadcasts on a marine band radio channel which is used
for distress, weather updates and marine information; they will also
employ an observer to monitor the safety zone throughout the exercise.
The Coast Guard also states that two independent environmental consulting
companies have determined that the use of live weapons on the Great Lakes
will present “no elevated risk to humans or the environment”.

You can view maps identifying the location of the live fire safety zones:
4 zones in Lake Erie at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131148/
3 zones in Lake Ontario at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131143/
7 zones in Lake Superior at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131141/
6 zones in Lake Huron at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131146/
7 zones in upper Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/
7 zones in lower Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:

**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

I usually agree with you politically but I don't understand how this
would endanger the public and the environment given what was posted in
the article?

While one may hear more about their rescues and safety; a good part of
their mission involves defensivie operations and I would prefer they be
able to shoot straight as a team off their boats.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in news:1158851221.574225.23340
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


Scott Seidman wrote:

**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

I usually agree with you politically but I don't understand how this
would endanger the public and the environment given what was posted in
the article?

While one may hear more about their rescues and safety; a good part of
their mission involves defensivie operations and I would prefer they be
able to shoot straight as a team off their boats.


Yeah, I could certainly reconsider this position. It won't be a Viejas.
The disturbing part to me involves the number of times I've boated through
the area off the Rochester Coast that is one of the protected areas.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...


**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

Comment by November 13, 2006
**Please distribute this information to interested parties in the U.S.
and Canada**

The United States Coast Guard, Ninth District, is proposing to conduct
live fire training throughout the Great Lakes. Great Lakes United has
serious concerns that gunfire exercises on the Great Lakes will put the
safety of the public and the environment at risk, and urges comment into
this serious issue. Please note: this alert does not question whether
Coast Guard personnel should be trained to handle weapons, rather whether
significant portions of the Great Lakes should be designated for live
fire military training.

Background:
The Ninth Coast Guard District is proposing the establishment of 34 live
fire safety zones throughout the Great Lakes, covering a combined total
of 2,376 square miles or 2.5% of the Lakes surface area. The safety
zones will be used to train Coast Guard personnel in maritime law
enforcement, national defense and homeland security using live 7.62mm
NATO rounds fired from lightweight automatic weapons. The proposed zones
would be permanent, and at this time are proposed for use "a few times in
a calendar year. with each exercise lasting approximately 4-6 hours". The
Coast Guard plans to alert the public in advance of all live gunfire
exercises through broadcasts on a marine band radio channel which is used
for distress, weather updates and marine information; they will also
employ an observer to monitor the safety zone throughout the exercise.
The Coast Guard also states that two independent environmental consulting
companies have determined that the use of live weapons on the Great Lakes
will present "no elevated risk to humans or the environment".

You can view maps identifying the location of the live fire safety zones:
4 zones in Lake Erie at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131148/
3 zones in Lake Ontario at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131143/
7 zones in Lake Superior at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131141/
6 zones in Lake Huron at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131146/
7 zones in upper Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/
7 zones in lower Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/


I can sort of see why they'd want to do this. The CG is understaffed, even
after president dick head promised to crank up their budget. If they have to
take personnel to a land-based firing range, it would, by necessity be far
from their boats. At least this way, they're working in their intended place
of business and can respond to emergencies.

But, it's still weird.

If any organization intends to take the CG to court about this, they'd be
wise to attack each issue separately, since ANY improvement in the plan
would be better than tying all the issues together and failing completely.
The strategy:

1) The easiest part: Insist that the CG use lead-free ammo for training. The
Army began doing this years ago, after groundwater contamination was proven
to come from some of their training areas. The Great Lakes have enough
problems without adding lead.

2) Insist that the CG increase their "zone of safety" to a distance equal to
10 times the known travel of the ammo in use. Ten miles would be about
right. I'm only familiar with Lake Ontario, and the map indicates the CG has
chosen their practice areas based solely on convenience - they're within
easy traveling distance to the nearest CG station. Too bad. Move them out.

3) Insist that the CG NOT depend solely on VHF notification. Anyone who's
seen the antics of power boaters on Lake Ontario will understand why.
Motor(s) too loud to hear radio. Radio off. Radio not installed. Radio sound
masked by ghetto blaster. The Navy used to use flagged ships in Block Island
Sound to indicate that submarine exercises were happening. It worked.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

I can sort of see why they'd want to do this. The CG is understaffed,
even after president dick head promised to crank up their budget.

I think many of CG vessels might still be deployed in the Persian Gulf,
as well.

If
they have to take personnel to a land-based firing range, it would, by
necessity be far from their boats. At least this way, they're working
in their intended place of business and can respond to emergencies.

But, it's still weird.

If any organization intends to take the CG to court about this, they'd
be wise to attack each issue separately, since ANY improvement in the
plan would be better than tying all the issues together and failing
completely. The strategy:

1) The easiest part: Insist that the CG use lead-free ammo for
training. The Army began doing this years ago, after groundwater
contamination was proven to come from some of their training areas.
The Great Lakes have enough problems without adding lead.

2) Insist that the CG increase their "zone of safety" to a distance
equal to 10 times the known travel of the ammo in use. Ten miles would
be about right. I'm only familiar with Lake Ontario, and the map
indicates the CG has chosen their practice areas based solely on
convenience - they're within easy traveling distance to the nearest CG
station. Too bad. Move them out.

That seems very clear. Maybe they're worried that if they move it out
too far, the Canuckistanians would consider it an act of war!


3) Insist that the CG NOT depend solely on VHF notification. Anyone
who's seen the antics of power boaters on Lake Ontario will understand
why. Motor(s) too loud to hear radio. Radio off. Radio not installed.
Radio sound masked by ghetto blaster. The Navy used to use flagged
ships in Block Island Sound to indicate that submarine exercises were
happening. It worked.



That is the most disturbing part. My own experience is that many
recreational boaters on Ontario are under-boated and underequipped. I've
heard many maydays called in just because of a little fog.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

I can sort of see why they'd want to do this. The CG is understaffed,
even after president dick head promised to crank up their budget.

I think many of CG vessels might still be deployed in the Persian Gulf,
as well.

If
they have to take personnel to a land-based firing range, it would, by
necessity be far from their boats. At least this way, they're working
in their intended place of business and can respond to emergencies.

But, it's still weird.

If any organization intends to take the CG to court about this, they'd
be wise to attack each issue separately, since ANY improvement in the
plan would be better than tying all the issues together and failing
completely. The strategy:

1) The easiest part: Insist that the CG use lead-free ammo for
training. The Army began doing this years ago, after groundwater
contamination was proven to come from some of their training areas.
The Great Lakes have enough problems without adding lead.

2) Insist that the CG increase their "zone of safety" to a distance
equal to 10 times the known travel of the ammo in use. Ten miles would
be about right. I'm only familiar with Lake Ontario, and the map
indicates the CG has chosen their practice areas based solely on
convenience - they're within easy traveling distance to the nearest CG
station. Too bad. Move them out.

That seems very clear. Maybe they're worried that if they move it out
too far, the Canuckistanians would consider it an act of war!

If a bullet comes anywhere near my son when we're fishing, it WILL be
considered an act of war. :-)



3) Insist that the CG NOT depend solely on VHF notification. Anyone
who's seen the antics of power boaters on Lake Ontario will understand
why. Motor(s) too loud to hear radio. Radio off. Radio not installed.
Radio sound masked by ghetto blaster. The Navy used to use flagged
ships in Block Island Sound to indicate that submarine exercises were
happening. It worked.



That is the most disturbing part. My own experience is that many
recreational boaters on Ontario are under-boated and underequipped. I've
heard many maydays called in just because of a little fog.
Scott

I was being polite in #3. The reality is that just like automobile drivers,
90% are utterly incompetent. My son says it's more like 98%.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

I can sort of see why they'd want to do this. The CG is understaffed,
even after president dick head promised to crank up their budget.

I think many of CG vessels might still be deployed in the Persian Gulf,
as well.

If
they have to take personnel to a land-based firing range, it would, by
necessity be far from their boats. At least this way, they're working
in their intended place of business and can respond to emergencies.

But, it's still weird.

If any organization intends to take the CG to court about this, they'd
be wise to attack each issue separately, since ANY improvement in the
plan would be better than tying all the issues together and failing
completely. The strategy:

1) The easiest part: Insist that the CG use lead-free ammo for
training. The Army began doing this years ago, after groundwater
contamination was proven to come from some of their training areas.
The Great Lakes have enough problems without adding lead.

2) Insist that the CG increase their "zone of safety" to a distance
equal to 10 times the known travel of the ammo in use. Ten miles would
be about right. I'm only familiar with Lake Ontario, and the map
indicates the CG has chosen their practice areas based solely on
convenience - they're within easy traveling distance to the nearest CG
station. Too bad. Move them out.

That seems very clear. Maybe they're worried that if they move it out
too far, the Canuckistanians would consider it an act of war!


3) Insist that the CG NOT depend solely on VHF notification. Anyone
who's seen the antics of power boaters on Lake Ontario will understand
why. Motor(s) too loud to hear radio. Radio off. Radio not installed.
Radio sound masked by ghetto blaster. The Navy used to use flagged
ships in Block Island Sound to indicate that submarine exercises were
happening. It worked.



That is the most disturbing part. My own experience is that many
recreational boaters on Ontario are under-boated and underequipped. I've
heard many maydays called in just because of a little fog.

I don't know much about conditions on most of the Great Lakes except from
what can reasonably be inferred by looking at maps, but the stupidity of
conducting live machine-gun fire exercises ANYWHERE in the southern third of
Lake Michigan beggars description. Deliberately locating the proposed areas
for such exercises little more than five miles from places like Milwaukee,
Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, Highland Park, Evanston, Chicago, Gary, Michigan
City, Benton Harbor, Grand Haven and Muskegon is criminally insane. Calling
these areas "safety zones" provides a hint of just how well considered this
plan is:

"Oh, Daddy, can we take the boat out on the lake this weekend?"

"Sure, Hon, just remember to stay in the safety zones."

Wolfgang
un****ingbelievable.

Scott Seidman wrote:
**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

Comment by November 13, 2006
**Please distribute this information to interested parties in the U.S.
and Canada**

The United States Coast Guard, Ninth District, is proposing to conduct
live fire training throughout the Great Lakes. Great Lakes United has
serious concerns that gunfire exercises on the Great Lakes will put the
safety of the public and the environment at risk, and urges comment into
this serious issue. Please note: this alert does not question whether
Coast Guard personnel should be trained to handle weapons, rather whether
significant portions of the Great Lakes should be designated for live
fire military training.

Background:
The Ninth Coast Guard District is proposing the establishment of 34 live
fire safety zones throughout the Great Lakes, covering a combined total
of 2,376 square miles or 2.5% of the Lakes surface area. The safety
zones will be used to train Coast Guard personnel in maritime law
enforcement, national defense and homeland security using live 7.62mm
NATO rounds fired from lightweight automatic weapons. The proposed zones
would be permanent, and at this time are proposed for use "a few times in
a calendar year... with each exercise lasting approximately 4-6 hours". The
Coast Guard plans to alert the public in advance of all live gunfire
exercises through broadcasts on a marine band radio channel which is used
for distress, weather updates and marine information; they will also
employ an observer to monitor the safety zone throughout the exercise.
The Coast Guard also states that two independent environmental consulting
companies have determined that the use of live weapons on the Great Lakes
will present "no elevated risk to humans or the environment".

You can view maps identifying the location of the live fire safety zones:
4 zones in Lake Erie at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131148/
3 zones in Lake Ontario at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131143/
7 zones in Lake Superior at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131141/
6 zones in Lake Huron at: http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131146/
7 zones in upper Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/
7 zones in lower Lake Michigan at:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Strawman. THE USCG can more than adequately conduct smallarms
marksmanship training on and at indoor and outdoor ranges of which
there are plenty to meet their purposes. However, the cutter and
patrol craft-mounted .50 and 20mm and 40mm guns are another matter
entirely. Initially, it may ONLY be for 7.72 mm caliber weapons and
smaller but watch that restriction be forgotten over time.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:20:24 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Calling
these areas "safety zones" provides a hint of just how well considered this
plan is:

"Oh, Daddy, can we take the boat out on the lake this weekend?"

"Sure, Hon, just remember to stay in the safety zones."

Wolfgang
un****ingbelievable.


I sometimes have trouble with straight speech, so the double speak of
calling a firing range a safety zone boggles me.

I only looked at the Superior map, but it looks way close to places
you'll find guys out trolling and pleasure boating on simple day
trips.

Some of it looked closer to shipping lanes than the big boats are
going to like, too.

I'm sure it's nice for the Coast Guard to be able to do their practice
and then go home to land at night for a home cooked meal and a nice
warm wave-free bed, but that's what the tourists and fishermen want,
too. This will lead to boat and body parts on the water sooner or
later.

Maybe they could keep the boys out for a few days, have just one range
per Great Lake, way out in the middle somewhere, and trade off regular
patrols as needed?
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
ups.com...

Scott Seidman wrote:

**ACTION ALERT**
U.S. Coast Guard Proposes Using Great Lakes as Firing Range
Gunfire Exercises Endanger Public and the Environment

I usually agree with you politically but I don't understand how this
would endanger the public and the environment given what was posted in
the article?

While one may hear more about their rescues and safety; a good part of
their mission involves defensivie operations and I would prefer they be
able to shoot straight as a team off their boats.


Lead?

7.62 millimeter, full metal jacket...


john (I used to use the Russian made hollow points...)