Talk:United States Coast Guard

Branch of the armed forces

It is described as a branch of the armed forces in the lead. But during peacetime it is not a part of the DoD. I would like to hear the input of other editors. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's defined as a branch of the armed forces in the United States Code. There's no definition of armed forces that limits that description to the Department of Defense. oknazevad (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this, the USCG is considered a branch of the Armed Forces, DoD documents often list it as the sixth branch but it is a branch regardless Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be settled, however, the USCG's status as an armed service is commonly misunderstood. I think it would be useful to include in the lead reference to Title 14 of US Code (14USC101) which states "The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." Travelingsponge (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in the Coast Guard

After these edits[1][2] by @Yeoman(F), I did some research. It does appear that a historian involved with the coast guard did further research and found that it was just Myrtle Hazard who served in the coast guard[3] and Genevieve and Lucille Baker did not serve in the Coast Guard or even the Navy during World War I." I'm willing to accept to accept this as definitive conclusion. The current material should be removed and on the Women in World War I. I was about to add the source until I saw @‎Skywatcher68 and @Garuda28: revert the edits so thought it would be better to discuss it. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that source in support of Hazard. Considering that the Baker twins are so wide spread, Wikipedia should mention them and Hazard with the caveat that the account of the Bakers is likely apocryphal.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes on both pages. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly misleading section

“Auxiliarists are subject to direction from the Commandant of the Coast Guard making them unique among all federal volunteers (e.g. Air Force's Civil Air Patrol and FBI's InfraGard); they are not a separate organization, but an integral part of the Coast Guard. As of 2022, there were approximately 26,000 members of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.”

This seems to be in error, or need clarification. The Civil Air Patrol is part of the USAF Total Force, and during assigned missions, subject to orders from the USAF. 2601:1C0:6C00:2DA0:28EC:B56A:84C0:1736 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"... uniformed, non-military volunteer component of the United States Coast Guard."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is my opinion that the words "non-military" are important in the description of the Coast Guard Auxiliary because it is a non-military organization whose mission is to assist the Coast Guard in it's non-military missions. If the words "non-military" are left out of the description then the reader of the article might be left with the impression that somehow the Auxiliary is conducting military missions like the Coast Guard does. The Auxiliary is currently prohibited from armed defense or law enforcement missions by law. There could be some confusion about this in the readers mind because of the Auxiliary's history during World War II when Auxiliarists were sometimes armed and conducted military operations. In the current environment Auxiliarists assist in many of the day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard but they may not directly participate in law enforcement or military actions. This distinction is important. While Auxiliarists serve in a uniform it is not required that other military members practice military courtesies upon meeting an Auxiliarist though many do so. "Auxiliarists wear military rank-style insignia that signify their leadership position but do not hold substantive military ranks and are not typically addressed by their position title." Therefore, by logic, Auxiliarists are non-military because they do not have a rank structure. "The rank-style insignia sported by Auxiliarists doesn't denote authority in a military sense but rather identifies an individual's position within the Auxiliary." This statement illustrates again that the Auxiliarist does not have the same authority as a Coast Guard officer. Just because the Coast Guard Auxiliary is non-military does not take away from the fact that the Auxiliary helps the Coast Guard as a whole in savings of manpower and money each and every day. The Auxiliarist serves alongside Coast Guardsmen in all missions except direct law enforcement and military missions. There is nothing wrong with being described as the "uniformed, non-military volunteer component of the United States Coast Guard" and every Auxiliarist should be proud of that fact. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's an important distinction, one based on legal authorization. I don't think there's much actual dispute here, as the distinction is well sourced and straight factual, so the tag, although admirable to prompt discussion, isn't really needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What is incorrect about saying they are the "volunteer uniformed branch of the United States Coast Guard"? Nothing is incorrect about saying that. The need to say non-military is incorrect and implies that it's in the same non-profit status as the Civil Air Patrol when it fact it is imbedded within the Coast Guard Organization and has been for over eighty years now. COASTIE I am (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the Coast Guard Auxiliary as "non-military" serves to emphasize their non-involvement in the military aspects of the Coast Guard, even though their name, "Coast Guard Auxiliary," inherently conveys their supportive and non-military nature. To avoid overusing "non-military," a more straightforward approach would be to describe their specific functions. While recognizing their historical involvement is essential, it shouldn't solely determine their present-day description; rather, their contemporary role is shaped by current legal constraints. It's worth noting that the repetition of "non-military" may suggest a negative perspective on the organization, potentially implying its lesser importance compared to the active-duty and reservist components of the Coast Guard.COASTIE I am (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In response to derogatory comments about the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the misconception that it is not a serious organization, it is crucial to emphasize the organization's significance and its unwavering commitment to serving the nation. The use of the term "non-military" in the article might not be the most effective way to characterize the Auxiliary, as it risks overshadowing its valuable contributions. Instead, the focus should be on highlighting the Auxiliary's mission, functions, and its pivotal support to the Coast Guard, which includes activities like Maritime Domain Awareness Air Patrols, Academy Introduction Mission (AIM), and various other critical roles. It's worth noting that in 1996, Congressional Legislation significantly expanded the Auxiliary's role, although it did not grant deputized law enforcement powers or involve it in military combat tasks. Reducing the Auxiliary's significance to the level of the Civil Air Patrol, primarily focused on youth, would undermine its vital contributions, especially in promoting recreational boating safety and its diverse involvement in activities such as search and rescue, marine safety and security, environmental protection and response, as well as some law enforcement and national defense-related tasks. Auxiliarists contribute by providing vessels and aircraft, directly supporting active-duty operations, managing radio stations, assisting with boat maintenance, handling administrative tasks, providing interpretation services, boosting morale, and fulfilling supportive roles at various Coast Guard units, particularly at small boat stations.COASTIE I am (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you've don't have the objective perspective necessary for this discussion. Saying it's non-military (because it is; it cannot take part in combat operations) is not negative. It's a plain statement of fact. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No where in my comments have I been derogatory about the Auxiliary or said that the Auxiliary is not a serious organization. Additionally, better read up a little on the mission of the Civil Air Patrol. I only mention this because you keep bringing up the Patrol in your comments. CAP is a Congressionally chartered organization that exists as the Air Force's Auxiliary and while it does have youth programs, it also is the Air Force's main go to for search and rescue involving downed aircraft in the United States. The CAP also provides emergency services to government and non-government agencies. See Civil Air Patrol Emergency services. If the Coast Guard Auxiliary were also focused on youth programs they might actually be very similar to the Civil Air Patrol. Both are Congressionally chartered and both are civilian volunteer non-military auxiliaries of armed forces branches. They sound pretty much alike to me. No one is reducing the Coast Guard Auxiliary to the Civil Air Patrol's level...they are on the same level. Both serve their parent organizations and the general public in the same missions. Your lack of objectivity is noted. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: it appears that this same issue is being actively discussed at the same time on another, related page, see: Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary#"... uniformed, non-military volunteer component of the United States Coast Guard.". I think we should pick one thread and go with that, and close the other, directing interested parties to the active thread. We don't want to to run into issues of forum shopping and/or conflicting consensuses. (jmho) And ftr, I've already commented on the other thread. (fyi) - wolf 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that since we are discussing the Auxiliary that the discussion should continue there. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.