First, I posted about the new requirements for fishing vessels needing two licensed engineers starting in 2015. There has been talk about the CG coming up with a different entry level license for the fishing vessels in order to accommodate the shortage of engineers. I cant seem to find anything on what they are looking at for an entry level license. Has anyone come across information about what they are considering?
Also, will any existing MMC other than assistant engineer / chief engineer fishing vessel or AE / CE limited cover the second spot ( QMEDs? ) ?
We are talking about 360 days to fill the gaps and there is very little information to be had about how someone will be able to stay in compliance.
Second, someone had mentioned the commercial fishing vessels under 200 tons to also require some type of licensing after Oct. 2015. What kind of coverage are we looking at there? Vessel from 200 tons all the way down to the 58 footers… and beyond?
I can’t believe there is no response to this!, well, despite what we think there has to be a logical ‘flow path’ for the reasoning prompting this action and I sort of had the same questions only regarding the Tug fleet, of which I know Zip being Unl. Blue Water but as I understand it tug boats are going to have to have licensed engineers also. THEREFORE; I should think that the requirement for a smaller fishing vessel vs a tug boat have got to have some similarities. I also understand that many tug companies are actively searching for that license… (whatever it is)
It is either going to raise the price of seafood, stress the politicians or stress the jones act! I may have some prejudice being a licensed officer but I think those small fishing boats and tugs probably operate as well now with just the owner and whoever aboard as they will after the changes, I mean, the effect will probably balance out where statistically nothing can be proved without juggling the numbers … and does it really add that much $ to the NMC?
well, I sure wouldn’t know about tonnage, 1600 is the smallest I’ve ever set foot on but it’s looking like there may be a opportunity in the future huh? I’d like to get back up north, despite it all I’d still rather sail the Aleutians that anywhere else, well, for a while anyway!! but damn, I’ve had bad days up there on 200+ ft. ships and I don’t care what they pay a fish boat… I wouldn’t be too damn eager to ride 15+ ft. seas on those things.
re; ‘fisherman on forum’’ … what I notice is it seems everyone is a deck officer? who do they think runs a ship anyway!!!
The USCG probably has had its hands full with the just published new licensing requirements, and the longstanding attempt to bring US tugs under inspection. The US is the only major country that still allows uninspected tugboats. US Tugs should be inspected with reasonable minimum manning requirements specified on the COI.
Great strides have already been made over the last few years with regard to fishing vessel safety. Especially, in Alaska, and especially for fishing boats in the 65’ and up class. While small fishing boats, especially on the East and Gulf Coasts, are overdue for safety improvements. However, I do not see much need for more regulations. This ought to be done through outreach and education, and insurance discounts Nor do I see much benefit from requiring more USCG licenses on small fishing boats.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;128017]The USCG probably has had its hands full with the just published new licensing requirements, and the longstanding attempt to bring US tugs under inspection. The US is the only major country that still allows uninspected tugboats. US Tugs should be inspected with reasonable minimum manning requirements specified on the COI.
Great strides have already been made over the last few years with regard to fishing vessel safety. Especially, in Alaska, and especially for fishing boats in the 65’ and up class. While small fishing boats, especially on the East and Gulf Coasts, are overdue for safety improvements. However, I do not see much need for more regulations. This ought to be done through outreach and education, and insurance discounts Nor do I see much benefit from requiring more USCG licenses on small fishing boats.[/QUOTE]
I agree on much of this, except for the last sentence. The benefit for requiring CG licenses on small fishing boats is that the owner or operator would have something to gain and then something to lose. Incentive to run a drug free vessel, operate with better judgement and equipment. And reduce the USCG SAR missions that are being conducted in any weather are a few reasons I can think of.
[QUOTE=c.captain;127988]sometimes threads fly below everyone else’s radar here and I think this is one because there are not too many fishermen aboard the forum.
btw, I always thought 300grt was the cut off where a fishing vessel required licenses abaord.[/QUOTE]
There may not be many fishermen here but id be willing to bet this will have an effect throughout the maritime industry when fishing vessel owners have to start throwing money around to get licensed engineers anywhere they can. When its already this hard to find licensed guys to get on the boats, doubling the required number is going to make things exponentially worse.
[QUOTE=jimrr;128011]well, I sure wouldn’t know about tonnage, 1600 is the smallest I’ve ever set foot on but it’s looking like there may be a opportunity in the future huh? I’d like to get back up north, despite it all I’d still rather sail the Aleutians that anywhere else, well, for a while anyway!! but damn, I’ve had bad days up there on 200+ ft. ships and I don’t care what they pay a fish boat… I wouldn’t be too damn eager to ride 15+ ft. seas on those things.
re; ‘fisherman on forum’’ … what I notice is it seems everyone is a deck officer? who do they think runs a ship anyway!!![/QUOTE]
This comment struck me as funny. In 12 years at sea, ive never worked on anything larger than 180ft in the north pacific, but yesterday as I was walking around on near 300 footer at the dock I thought, this is way too damn much boat! Looks like a headache. If the pay was better id be interested but I doubt that will happen.
[QUOTE=seacomber;128031]I agree on much of this, except for the last sentence. The benefit for requiring CG licenses on small fishing boats is that the owner or operator would have something to gain and then something to lose. Incentive to run a drug free vessel, operate with better judgement and equipment. And reduce the USCG SAR missions that are being conducted in any weather are a few reasons I can think of.[/QUOTE]
This link explains a widely unknown direction that American commercial fishing has taken. Many of the fleets have downsized with competition reduced. I have supported additional CG licensing on small vessels (48’ - 78’) mainly due to safety reasons, to bring these vessel operators abreast of other commercial operations in the same waters and admittedly partly due to the chance that a CG license holder could be hired to go fishing part time.
Jack Tar Magazine shared a link. Who Owns the Fish? youtube.com
Who Owns the Fish? youtube.com
Any commercial fisherman used to be able to fish in U.S. seas. Not anymore. Today, the right to fish belongs to a number of private individuals who have trad…