Clean boats x dirty boats

[Pete7]

Very sad, some people don't deserve to own yachts.

Pete

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Neither statement is remotely true. And anybody who is paying attention understands that not performing in-water hull cleaning is environmentally more damaging than doing it is. Increased fuel consumption, increased hydrocarbon emissions and transport of invasive species are just a few of the reasons why.

"Established" was an overstatement on my part, a word I wish I had not used because I do not feel that way, but it is a statement many would agree with. Saying that the practice is questionable is obvious, since many regulatory authorities are questioning it. For soft paints, it is established as a poor practice for both environmental and practical reasons. I understand you sometimes clean soft paints, but I have tested soft paints locally and am quite convinced that it removes copper and reduces paint life expectancy dramatically, no matter how gentle or infrequent the process. Hard paint the case is far less clear and probably varies regionally. That seems to be the consensus.

Fuel consumption is rather low if we are sailors. Speaking for myself, the difference between a hull that has been scrubbed and one that has been painted on a 2-year schedule but not scrubbed would be not more than 1-gallon per year. Yes, sailing would be a few tenths of a knot slower, but only for the last few months. I find that vigorous sailing will keep the paint clean in this area IF the paint is good. Comparing to a boat with a real beard is silly, because he won't scrub and he won't clean. Yes, I understand that many areas have more growth, but the Chesapeake is not a clean area either.

Transport of invasive species is valid, except the boats in question aren't moving. Additionally, unless there is a local transport issue it is not relevant. For example, on the US east coast it is largely irrelevant and could not be used as an argument for local sailors. The OP did not bring it up, so assumed he was not interested in it and that it was not an important local issue.

---

I can see that cleaning is good practice for some people in some places, but mandating it will require science. Speed is an irrelevant argument, since the owners clearly don't care.

Generate the data. Perhaps the divers association should get involved, for if he is correct, it is a strong argument for cleaning and regular hull maintnance. The hull cleaning industry could use a fresh, good argument. However, I don't think it is obvious or intuitive. As I pointed out, several marinas in the Chesapeake Bay have banned in-slip cleaning because of the suggestion that it increased growth (I interviewed them) on neighboring boats, and as a result of this policy, the racers have to meet the diver on the hook. There is an active racing club, with high-dollar boats, and that is what they do. Their bottoms are clean.

I think the OP posed an excellent question. Does cleaning increase or decrease growth on neighboring boats? A great thesis project for someone.

[hellosailor]

We did once every 2-3 weeks on a mooring, and it was enough. But the racers wanted a cleaning every Friday night, so it would be clean for the weekend. And for some folks, once a month was enough. I don't think you'll find any schedule that keeps everyone happy, even if you can negotiate a great rate from one diver to service the whole club. And even if they can service the whole club, i.e. too many boats may all want it on Friday.

[thinwater]

I think it is interesting that sailors, of all people, feel they have such a right to tell other people how to live. Just because we value sailing fast, does not mean they do. Perhaps they like to simply sit on the boat. Perhaps they trim sails poorly. Perhaps they like owning a boat, just to have it--people buy nice cars for no good reason. These things seem odd to me, but I accept that they are not my business. Without hard science, this is like that.

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by thinwater

"Established" was an overstatement on my part, a word I wish I had not used because I do not feel that way, but it is a statement many would agree with. Saying that the practice is questionable is obvious, since many regulatory authorities are questioning it. For soft paints, it is established as a poor practice for both environmental and practical reasons. I understand you sometimes clean soft paints, but I have tested soft paints locally and am quite convinced that it removes copper and reduces paint life expectancy dramatically, no matter how gentle or infrequent the process. Hard paint the case is far less clear and probably varies regionally. That seems to be the consensus.

Fuel consumption is rather low if we are sailors. Speaking for myself, the difference between a hull that has been scrubbed and one that has been painted on a 2-year schedule but not scrubbed would be not more than 1-gallon per year. Yes, sailing would be a few tenths of a knot slower, but only for the last few months. I find that vigorous sailing will keep the paint clean in this area IF the paint is good. Comparing to a boat with a real beard is silly, because he won't scrub and he won't clean. Yes, I understand that many areas have more growth, but the Chesapeake is not a clean area either.

Transport of invasive species is valid, except the boats in question aren't moving. Additionally, unless there is a local transport issue it is not relevant. For example, on the US east coast it is largely irrelevant and could not be used as an argument for local sailors. The OP did not bring it up, so assumed he was not interested in it and that it was not an important local issue.

---

I can see that cleaning is good practice for some people in some places, but mandating it will require science. Speed is an irrelevant argument, since the owners clearly don't care.

Generate the data. Perhaps the divers association should get involved, for if he is correct, it is a strong argument for cleaning and regular hull maintnance. The hull cleaning industry could use a fresh, good argument. However, I don't think it is obvious or intuitive. As I pointed out, several marinas in the Chesapeake Bay have banned in-slip cleaning because of the suggestion that it increased growth (I interviewed them) on neighboring boats, and as a result of this policy, the racers have to meet the diver on the hook. There is an active racing club, with high-dollar boats, and that is what they do. Their bottoms are clean.

I think the OP posed an excellent question. Does cleaning increase or decrease growth on neighboring boats? A great thesis project for someone.

The photos I posted show boats that should have an initial cleaning out of the water, but after that, a monthly scrubbing would not be a problem to be done at slip. Just an impression...

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

......... If you want a clean bottom, paint it with TBT and just don't tell anyone........

I just posted on another forum about getting bad advice on a web form. The advice given here fits that category. DO NOT DO THIS!

Anyone asking for advice on a web forum really needs to check out the advice given before following it.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by hthoni

Although empirical, it seems logical to me that a neighboring fouled hull will increase fouling on your own clean hull. I need to prove it to our club managers, so they find a way to force boat owners to keep their hulls in a decent condition. Can anyone help me on finding supporting studies?

No. What you are proposing makes no sense. Consider that pilings and dock floats often have extensive growth on them. That's no different than other nearby boats having growth on them.

You really have no legal or moral basis to force other boat owners to do anything unless you own the marina. If you don't like the condition of the other boats, you should look for a marina with nicer boats.

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by rwidman

No. What you are proposing makes no sense. Consider that pilings and dock floats often have extensive growth on them. That's no different than other nearby boats having growth on them.



You really have no legal or moral basis to force other boat owners to do anything unless you own the marina. If you don't like the condition of the other boats, you should look for a marina with nicer boats.

It's obvious no absolute solution to the problem , my question was if it increases the problem or not.

I don't own the marina, I'm suggesting the owner to force it. And it seems they've liked the idea.

[Bleemus]

You should also ask your marina to remove all the pilings near your boat. There is stuff growing all over them thicker than your neighbors boat! When you meet with them with your proposal make sure not to take offense at their hysterical laughter. They are good people deep down.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by hthoni

It's obvious no absolute solution to the problem , my question was if it increases the problem or not.

I don't own the marina, I'm suggesting the owner to force it. And it seems they've liked the idea.

That was not your question. Your question was how to prove what you consider to be an empirical and logical truth, a conclusion that you have already arrived at.

The marina owners probably like the idea because it will either drive revenue or make the marina more attractive to prospective clients. They're just waiting for you to supply a rational with which they can fend off complaints once they institute the new policy.

Honestly, given the environment for fouling there even if it were true that critters were migrating to the nearby surfaces, the difference in growth if you had clean bottoms next to yours would be minimal. You're berthed in the equivalent of an enormous petri dish with an "All You Can Eat" sign hung on it.

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by Bleemus

You should also ask your marina to remove all the pilings near your boat. There is stuff growing all over them thicker than your neighbors boat! When you meet with them with your proposal make sure not to take offense at their hysterical laughter. They are good people deep down.

Some tasks are not feasible, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done to make something better.

Mooring beside a boat like this...



Is like living beside a house like this...

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by Suijin

That was not your question. Your question was how to prove what you consider to be an empirical and logical truth, a conclusion that you have already arrived at.



The marina owners probably like the idea because it will either drive revenue or make the marina more attractive to prospective clients. They're just waiting for you to supply a rational with which they can fend off complaints once they institute the new policy.



Honestly, given the environment for fouling there even if it were true that critters were migrating to the nearby surfaces, the difference in growth if you had clean bottoms next to yours would be minimal. You're berthed in the equivalent of an enormous petri dish with an "All You Can Eat" sign hung on it.

If you show me a study that a dirty boat nearby would benefit my hull, I would certainly forget the project.

They reproduce spreading larvae, that will attach to surfaces. The more critters you have around you, more larvae will be carried by the flow, and eventually find your boat.

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

We did once every 2-3 weeks on a mooring, and it was enough. But the racers wanted a cleaning every Friday night, so it would be clean for the weekend. And for some folks, once a month was enough. I don't think you'll find any schedule that keeps everyone happy, even if you can negotiate a great rate from one diver to service the whole club. And even if they can service the whole club, i.e. too many boats may all want it on Friday.

My proposal was to force owners who don't clean their boats.

I would keep my own diver to clean mine, and all other owners who care about their boats would keep their current cleaning schedule.

But those who leave their boats like crap, would have it cleaned by the marina, at a less interesting cost.

[hthoni]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I think it is interesting that sailors, of all people, feel they have such a right to tell other people how to live. Just because we value sailing fast, does not mean they do. Perhaps they like to simply sit on the boat. Perhaps they trim sails poorly. Perhaps they like owning a boat, just to have it--people buy nice cars for no good reason. These things seem odd to me, but I accept that they are not my business. Without hard science, this is like that.

It not a matter of sailing fast. Those creatures can clog your engine cooling systems, propeller, axis, rudder...

You can have your boat in whatever condition or purpose you wish, as long you don't create problems to your neighbors. It's just like a house... if you play loud music 3 am, every night, you will have problems...

[SailingFan]

Good Lord... How is it that so many folks go to such lengths to impose their personal cleaning will upon others and they don't get booted from the marina for just making trouble? If the guy has a trashed hull and vessel and it looks ugly enough that the marina has an issue with it, that is their issue, but it is not the issue of the patrons of the marina to enforce. If the patrons don't like it, they are free to spend their fees elsewhere.

It does not matter what the issue is, there is always someone who seems to come along and complain that another persons house/car/boat/lawn is needing maintenance, and not only do they try to hunt up "facts" to support the preformed conclusion, they do not take the initiative to offer to the other owner a means to share in the cost to initiate a remedy, nor do they offer to do it themselves to protect themselves from whatever perceived loss they would suffer if the situation remained as it was currently.

In this case, if all those critters were knocked loose, some would be part of the feast for fishes, some would fall to the bottom, some would drift away, and the rest will latch, mostly down current, against whatever they could hold to as they passed by. In the case of this particular marina, given the photos of the plastic bags, bilge grease, and other pollutants I see in that water, the neighbor's hull is the LEAST of the OP concerns. A few plankton and shells won't do crap relative to that plastic bag, and yet he was there to take the pic and not to remove the bag? That soupy garbage that is called "water" around those hulls is just teeming with life, and scraping the hull is not going to change that. It may redistribute it for a little bit, but it is still going to lock onto any available surface, whether that hull is there or not.

The funny thing is that the greater the growth already on the hull, the less effective the hull paint is going to be in repelling growth, and that means the dirty hull may actually be attracting the growth away from the cleaner ones! Consider how reefs work, they are fish magnets. They gather all sorts of life in an otherwise somewhat more barren ocean. The neighbor's hull is a reef, and is concentrating critters and growth, so the OP should be happy it is there!