Coast Guard urged to drop target-practice plan

Great Lakes Area Tries To Dodge A Bullet
Guard Urged to Drop Target-Practice Plan
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, December 10, 2006; Page A01
CHICAGO -- U.S. Coast Guard vessels staging machine-gun target practice in the peaceable Great Lakes? George Heartwell does not like the idea, not one little bit. He questions the need, the risk and the appearance.
"I think our Canadian friends see us as trigger-happy cowboys," said Heartwell, mayor of Grand Rapids, Mich. "There simply have to be other ways and better ways."
'http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900354.html',

In the name of defending the United States against terrorists, the Coast Guard proposes live-fire zones in all five Great Lakes, where gunners could perfect their skills on M-240B machine guns to be mounted on Lakes vessels. The weapons can fire hundreds of 7.62mm rounds a minute and send lead 2.3 miles downrange.
The Coast Guard, at a series of public hearings this fall, defended the 34 proposed zones as essential to its mission. Each zone, located at least five miles offshore, would be used perhaps two or three times a year for a few hours. Civilian boaters would be warned to stay away.
Yet opposition to the proposal is formidable and growing, led by an alliance of 80 mayors from eight states and Canada who called on the Coast Guard last month to drop the plan. More than a dozen environmental groups have asked for changes in the project and a deeper study of the effect on the ecosystem of hundreds of thousands of lead bullets.
Toronto Mayor David Miller, speaking for the organization of mayors, called the live-fire proposal "totally contrary to the long history of peaceful relations and environmental cooperation between the United States and Canada on the Great Lakes."
The decision to install machine guns on Coast Guard vessels in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes was sensitive enough that the Bush administration sought to assure the Canadians that the weapons would not violate the spirit of an 1817 agreement limiting armaments on the lakes, home to 21 percent of the fresh water on the Earth's surface.
Asserting the need for the guns, a State Department diplomatic note in April 2003 cited "the potential for a tragic outcome" if the border's integrity were breached.
The Coast Guard began live-fire training earlier this year, conducting 24 exercises before a public outcry forced a suspension. The Coast Guard held nine public hearings and extended the comment period by two months to explain the plans and overcome the suspicion that they had acted dismissively.
Chief Petty Officer Robert Lanier, a spokesman for the Coast Guard's regional headquarters in Cleveland, described the training. Gunners in the 34 zones would shoot at floating targets in exercises lasting four to six hours at a time.
"To be proficient on the weapon, we have to practice," Lanier said. "There's a tremendous difference between operating any type of weapon on land versus operating it on water, where you've got the motion of the Great Lakes, the wind current, the sun."
Opponents, however, suggest using a simulator or sending Coast Guard members to train on the ocean.
"To be honest with you, we don't feel we're ready for this militarization of the Great Lakes," said F. Ned Dikmen, Chicago-based chairman of the Great Lakes Boating Federation. "The waterways, the pristineness, the enjoyment, takes on a different picture."
Dikmen continued. "My biggest fear is a poor fisherman that is not very radio-friendly and might not even know exactly what hit him. Are you going to call them on the phone? How are they supposed to know they are 2.3 miles out from the firing range?"
Kevin Crawford, mayor of Manitowoc, Wis., is among the critics who believe the Coast Guard acted badly.
"That's our freshwater supply. We fish out of there. We recreate out of there," said Crawford, who is also skeptical of federal projections that the lead in the Coast Guard's bullets will do no harm. "The idea that continuous activity of the Coast Guard over time won't have an effect is untrue, or least we don't know it to be true."
One of Crawford's worries is the safety of passengers on the S.S. Badger, a steam-powered ferry that churns between Manitowoc and Ludington, Mich. Another concern is the potential for unease among tourists who gravitate to the lake.
"You never know what's going to set off a change in the visitor economy," said Crawford, who added that he was not concerned about the prospect of terrorists on the Great Lakes. "There just doesn't seem to be that kind of a threat out there."
Not everyone is speaking against the Coast Guard project. Among the supporters is Dexter Nelson, captain of the 34-foot, twin-engine Fishin' Luhrs, who figures he has spent more than 17,000 hours afloat in Lake Superior, catching lake trout, walleye and salmon. He is confident the Coast Guard will find ways to notify boaters and fishermen, and he believes the training is necessary.
"I just think leave them alone and let them do what they need to do," said Nelson, who is based in Duluth, Minn. "If something happens, it's good if they're well-trained."
The Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council proposes reducing the 14 proposed Lake Michigan zones by half and moving them farther offshore. In a vast lake that stretches about 120 miles at its widest point, the proposal would mean a zone perhaps 40 miles from the shoreline, compared with the current five-mile minimum.
"It's really nothing for the average angler to go 10 or 15 miles offshore to fish," said Dan Thomas, president of the Chicago-based council, which counts 300,000 members. He supports the Coast Guard and considers the live-fire zones a minor inconvenience worth tolerating.
"They're putting their lives on the line to protect your butt and my butt," Thomas said. "There need to be some adjustments, but at the same time, I'm telling my guys, 'Get a life.' "
The Coast Guard is reviewing its plans, with no announced date for a decision.