To the Editor:
Your recent article, “Island boaters ask Coast Guard to modify buoy removal program” (Sept. 29) was very informative. As a sailor, I am familiar with the waters in question. In fact, my qualifications for the Unlimited Master’s license endorsed for self-propelled and auxiliary vessels came in part from time served in those very waters. It is my belief that the proposed buoyage removal plan is shortsighted, with a goal of cost-cutting for buoyage tender operations without cost considerations to the Coast Guard district serving this area.
Some money for buoyage tender operations might be saved. However, the buoy tender still needs to be maintained and crewed regardless. Removal would as your article indicates lead to potential groundings and the necessity of rescue. Although it is implicit in the realm of these types of disasters that there is a potential for environmental damage through oil spills in any grounding, it is my belief that your newspaper has a duty to its readership to outline how potentially costly it could be to have a significant oil spill in Vineyard Haven or Robinson’s Hole. Your community is being placed in grave danger by some under-researched cost-cutting proposals.
Perhaps the costs that will be incurred to the Coast Guard will be placed upon different budgetary offices than the buoy tender operations, so your concerns may fall upon deaf ears in these community forums. However, the Coast Guard has a mandate to ensure environmental protection. Please stress the importance to your readership of the potential of environmental impact that these proposed changes create.
Donald Lindsay
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
The post Shortsighted Coast Guard proposal appeared first on Martha's Vineyard Times.