Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Construction, Maintenance & Refit (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f55/)
-   -   Seahawks islands 44 issues (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f55/seahawks-islands-44-issues-152532.html)

C Skip R 27-04-2020 05:07

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3126483)
Well, that is apparently simply not the case:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1...922/d4YHWc.jpg

However there are many reasons you should not use Islands 44.

I suggest you call them because you will get a different answer. They just told a friend do not apply over any other bottom paint whether Seahawk or another brand.

Paradox111 15-09-2020 14:58

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Has anyone used "Islands 77" ?
(seventy seven)
https://www.seahawkpaints.com/produc...nds-77-plus-3/

https://www.bottompaintstore.com/isl...nt-p-9636.html

Boatguy30 15-09-2020 17:22

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I considered buying some 44 in Panama at about $350/gal. Only need 2. It's $700/gal in Papette. Very surprised they sell it in a EU country!

wingssail 15-09-2020 17:23

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 2698322)
... But maybe you should consider being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

Well, what is the solution we should be a part of?

Backing up, I'm not talking about TBT paint, even copper based paints are being banned. In my state copper based paints cannot be applied after 2020. California is also considering this type of ban. The problematic thing for me is that without some sort of effective bottom paint I don't see how recreational boating can continue. Scraping is only so effective, and after a couple of years it is not effective. Further, even scraping and bottom cleaning is being considered un-environmental and in some places it is banned. Is it acceptable collateral damage that all boats must be removed from the water between uses?

And it seems cynical to me that in my state it only applies to recreational vessels under 65 feet. Bigger boats can use copper. Ships can use copper. I think these kind of waivers are widespread. Why? because they have lobbyists and they have demonstrated (and paid) how impossible it would be for them without copper paint. So a recreational sailor must protect the environment while a ship (or even a super yacht) does not have to? Because it is too expensive for them?

Am I being a cynic if I say that the environmental consideration is a joke if they let super tankers get away with using it? The restrictions are not serious about saving the environment (nor are you), it is about being seen as being environmentally aware, otherwise they would stop the shipping industry and the super yachts.

So I don't believe it.

Here is a story (true) of environmental rules gone too far. My friend came home one night to his boat on "E" dock in Shilshole Marina. There was a 2000lb Sea Lion on the dock blocking his access to his boat, acting a little agro when my friend approached (who argues with Jabba the Hut when his teeth are showing?). So my friend picked up a convenient water hose and squirted the Sea Lion, which then slid off the dock and barked from the water nearby. All good, right?

No. A neighbor who witnessed this turned my friend in to the DNR who are the enforcers of the Marine Mammal act which prohibits harassment of marine mammals, and my friend was warned not to ever do that again, at risk of fines or imprisonment.

"But is it my dock!" my friend protested.

"Doesn't matter, you cannot harass them."

My friend answered, "Well, I'm glad he doesn't want my car."

a64pilot 15-09-2020 17:43

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Yeah, squirting a 2,000 lb marine mammal with a water hose must have truly terrified it, ruined its life.

Things are ridiculous, at Panama City some wild Dolphins would hang out to interact with the people on boats, and some would feed them, so undercover FWC would hang out on Jet Skis and hand out huge fines.
What’s next? Fines for feeding seagulls? What’s the difference between a Dolphin and a seagull?

fstbttms 15-09-2020 20:43

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wingssail (Post 3233719)
In my state copper based paints cannot be applied after 2020. California is also considering this type of ban.

Umm... California is not "considering this type of ban." You are regurgitating news from 8-10 years ago. The legislation you are referring to never even made it to the House floor for a vote. Further, Washington has enacted legislation that pushes any potential ban on copper-based paints in that state back to 2026.

wingssail 15-09-2020 22:17

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3233829)
Umm... California is not "considering this type of ban." You are regurgitating news from 8-10 years ago. The legislation you are referring to never even made it to the House floor for a vote. Further, Washington has enacted legislation that pushes any potential ban on copper-based paints in that state back to 2026.

Well, fstbttms, enlighten us. Has California given up recreational boating or are there some loopholes through which boats with toxic bottom paints are still able to sail?

I notice that you did not address the contradiction I spoke of: How is it that the 35-65 ft recreational boats threaten our waters with their bottom paint but 90,000 ocean going ships, each one requiring probably 1000 times as much paint as a 40 ft sailboat, are permitted to paint their bottoms with antifouling but somehow are not a threat?

fstbttms 16-09-2020 07:07

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wingssail (Post 3233857)
Well, fstbttms, enlighten us. Has California given up recreational boating or are there some loopholes through which boats with toxic bottom paints are still able to sail?

"Enlighten" you as to what? Copper-based anti fouling paints are not going anywhere, certainly not in California. There are no plans, no legislation, no nothing in the works to eliminate copper as a biocide in anti fouling paints. No loopholes needed. As I mentioned, the California legislation that was similar to Washington's proposed law died in 2011 without even being voted upon. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingssail (Post 3233857)
I notice that you did not address the contradiction I spoke of: How is it that the 35-65 ft recreational boats threaten our waters with their bottom paint but 90,000 ocean going ships, each one requiring probably 1000 times as much paint as a 40 ft sailboat, are permitted to paint their bottoms with antifouling but somehow are not a threat?

See, you fail to even understand the problem. The reason there is any scrutiny at all of anti fouling paints on recreational vessels and not large commercial vessels is that commercial vessels do not congregate in large numbers in small, poorly-flushed basins for extended periods of time like recreational vessels do. So those many hundreds (and sometimes many thousands) of boats sitting in a given marina? They're polluting that marina with their paint's copper biocide 24/7/365. Commercial vessels don't do that. Further, discharges from commercial shipping in this country are already regulated under a different set of rules. It's called the Vessel General Permit. You could look it up. But I suspect that research isn't your forte.

Bycrick 16-09-2020 07:41

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I wonder if fstbtms would be quite as cavalier about the people who build their houses in woodlands. Are they "getting what they deserve?"

fstbttms 16-09-2020 07:49

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick (Post 3234034)
I wonder if fstbtms would be quite as cavalier about the people who build their houses in woodlands. Are they "getting what they deserve?"

People with houses in the woods are not polluting their neighborhoods with illegal pesticides, nor are they advocating for it, as is the case in this thread. In addition, people with houses in the woods are not the cause of wildfires. Your analogy is ridiculous.

Bycrick 16-09-2020 08:28

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Sorry, but I would assert that the 18000 structures that were destroyed in the Camp Fire, and the people who inhabited them were exactly "pollution" because they had a deleterious effect on the environment. You’re certainly entitled to decide how you’re going to save the world, but you shouldn’t expect everybody else to jump on your bandwagon, or unilaterally decide that "they got what they deserved" when something bad happens to them.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 08:46

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick (Post 3234078)
Sorry, but I would assert that the 18000 structures that were destroyed in the Camp Fire, and the people who inhabited them were exactly "pollution" because they had a deleterious effect on the environment.

Boy, that's a real stretch, blaming the loss by fire of an entire town on it's residents. That fire was caused by the electric utility (PG& E) deferring maintenance on their equipment and the brush surrounding it. I happen to have friends and customers who lost their homes in Paradise and I guarantee they'd tell you that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick (Post 3234078)
You’re certainly entitled to decide how you’re going to save the world, but you shouldn’t expect everybody else to jump on your bandwagon, or unilaterally decide that "they got what they deserved" when something bad happens to them.

The "something bad" you are referring to is about a guy who bought a product from a disreputable company and the product failed. In addition, the product is so harmful to the environment, most of the world has banned its use. This guy probably ended up having to haul his boat and repaint. Hardly the same thing as losing a home or a loved one to a wildfire.

And I stand by my statement: If you do business with criminals and in doing so intentionally pollute the marine environment with one of the worst poisons ever to be used in anti fouling paint; you get what you deserve.

a64pilot 16-09-2020 09:32

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I’m not so sure you should be calling the company disreputable or criminal.
I’m aware that in the past some of the Company officers were found guilty.

However selling a product in that’s illegal in one Country in a Country that it’s not illegal is not disreputable or criminal.

You can’t buy a two stroke outboard in the US just like you can’t buy tin bottom paint, yet Yamaha sells then throughout the world, and I doubt many would try to argue that they don’t pollute. Does that make Yamaha a disreputable, criminal company?

fstbttms 16-09-2020 09:38

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 3234138)
I’m not so sure you should be calling the company disreputable or criminal.
I’m aware that in the past some of the Company officers were found guilty.

The entire Sea Hawk leadership team went to federal prison because of their crimes regarding TbT paint. You set the bar pretty high for what constitutes "disreputable."

sailorboy1 16-09-2020 09:42

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Boaters and bottom cleaners aren't really on the same page far as bottom paint. Boaters want bottom paint that doesn't allow stuff to grow on the hull, while I bet bottom cleaners just want the paint to allow it to be easier for them to remove.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 16:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.