Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?

[Neill McKay]

Well, of course we need to arm the coast guard. They should not have to call for help from the Navy whenever things that require guarding come along. The little stinch we had a few years back with the Spanish vessel off of Newfoundland would be a perfect example.

We still had an armed fisheries patrol fleet then.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We still had an armed fisheries patrol fleet then.

I still believe they are armed

 

[Neill McKay]

I still believe they are armed

There isn't a separate fisheries patrol fleet anymore; they were absorbed into the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard was absorbed into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (creating some controversy over just who absorbed whom!).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.

 

[Neill McKay]

I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.

Sounds like a pretty solid source, and also at least a partial answer to the question about whether we should arm the Coast Guard!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

From what I gather from him though they are unhappy with the merger and still consider themselves seperate entities.

 

[Neill McKay]

From what I gather from him though they are unhappy with the merger and still consider themselves seperate entities.

I was on a (civvy) course with a CG member and a DFO staffer a few years ago.  I honestly thought the CG member was going to get up and hit the other guy a couple of times -- all kinds of animosity.  I don't know much at all about the DFO fleet, but I gather the operating cultures were radically different.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.

I heard that they armed a couple of the ships with MG's during the Turbot war, but didn't realize they kept them aboard!

The last armed Fisheries vessel on this coast was a patrol cutter called the Laurier approx 120' long.

 

[midget-boyd91]

I can honestly not tell why there is even questions as to whether or not the CG should be armed. Is it costs, politics, or manpower shortages.
Because, why would we have a guard that does not have equipment to guard in a threatening situation ... can someone here who knows the answer please enlighten me.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The thing is though you are applying USCG standards to be Canadian standards and they could not be farther from each other. Our CG is for ice breaking, SAR, pollution control, navigation and limited enforcement. The USCG has always been military oriented whereas ours is not (and prob never will be).

 

[MarkOttawa]

midget-boyd91: Further to the post immediately above, the CCG is a completely civilian organization with no  peace officer powers (Fishery Officers with such powers are carried on some ships, and CCG vessels sometimes act as platforms for RCMP officers carrying out their duties).  The CCG has no military or quasi-military functions.  Check their website:

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/main_e.htm

As for Fishery Officers, see "THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT":
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

A couple of nights ago, I watched that CBC special on the Arctic hosted by Peter Mansbridge, when he was aboard the Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen.  I recall a segment of the program when the ship stopped at a certain part of the ice sheet to take ice thickness samples and other scientific readings. I was a little perplexed that the crew of the ship had to hire a local Inuit tribesman from nearby Sachs harbour to help stand watch and guard the scientists/crewmen against polar bears that may be lurking about. Why did the crew need to do that, since I recall someone mentioning early in this thread about CCG crewmen having some .303's?

However unbeknownst to most we were armed in a fashion. Our cutter had a .303 still wrapped in Cosmoline and paper under the Capt. Bunk when we retired her, also the Icebreakers carry a scoped rifle for bear defense.

 

[eurowing]

I can't speak for the east coast, but in Campbell River, I have walked up to the CG Cutter where it is normally moored at a regular town wharf.  No extra security.  They just tie it up.  If it is ever decided to arm them, then the resultant security issues will be a serious hurdle to overcome.  Guards would be required, duty watches etc, fencing, perhaps a secure "mini-base". 

If we as trained and disciplined soldiers, sailors and airmen aren't to be trusted to hold magazines (for the younglings, in prehistoric times we kept our mags at home or in our ready lockers) what hope would the Coast Guard have of overcoming the firearms rules?

I don't see it happening without a huge culture shift and a very large infusion of cash!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is generally a rifle onboard for bears, but most Captains don't want the headache involved in letting their guys carry it, easier to hire a local who can easily shoot the bear without as much paperwork, and more likely to do so.

 

[eurowing]

I should have been more specific in my post.  Just in case I caused confusion, I meant that arming the ship with heavier weapons as discussed earlier in the thread would require a great deal of security.  More than a lone long gun requires.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I should have been more specific in my post.  Just in case I caused confusion, I meant that arming the ship with heavier weapons as discussed earlier in the thread would require a great deal of security.  More than a lone long gun requires.

I think shooting polar bears with a 76 mm would be bad form. 

 

[medaid]

I think shooting polar bears with a 76 mm would be bad form. 

The pink mist.... POOF!

Hey... where's the bear?!

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Then after you killed a bunch, you could blame global warming on the declining polar bear population. 
It's flawless!

 

[eurowing]

Sigh, I thought everyone knew the decline of pirates was the cause of global warming.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Back on topic please!

Milnet.ca Staff