Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Boat owners and hull cleaners want the same thing- an anti fouling paint that is effective and durable. Nobody likes cleaning sh*tty paint.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Operative word to me here is did, as in past tense.

The truth is, that I did things in my youth that most likely would have landed me in jail, maybe even Federal Prison, so I’m less likely to condemn people for life for past mistakes, because I know that it was just pure luck of the draw that my life ended up as well as it did, it could just have easily gone the other way.

If you have ever dealt with the higher levels of Business, and by that I mean the leaders of Billion dollar companies, it’s surprising at how many are in my opinion just crooks, protected by levels of lawyers I’m sure, and they justify their behavior by saying “it’s just business”. I know because I’ve seen it, and it made a strong impression on me.

Not all of course, Joe Brown who owns Hartzell Propellor and GE’s Vice President of General Aviation Brad Mottier for example are in my opinion upstanding people with very high moral standards, but they are outnumbered.
For obvious reasons I won’t name some of the crooks.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

They may have paid their fines and done their time, but they're still selling the poison and they're the only ones on the planet that do. I guess that's OK with you. It's not with me.

I had a conversation with Sea Hawk sales manager Tommie Craft about this very subject. To hear him tell it, it was all a big misunderstanding and not the company or its executives' fault. Slimiest bullsh*t I've ever heard.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Boat owners don't want to have to clean the hull, period! To us paint that grows stuff isn't paint that works!

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Then you have unrealistic expectations. For sure you don't represent the great majority of boat owners, who understand that anti fouling paint doesn't eliminate fouling completely.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Yes I am unrealistic to expect the crap to work!!! Of course the only reason to call it unrealistic is because we know it doesn't work.

And trust me we ALL understand that all of it is just crap! The only ones who are happy about are people like your, boat yards and of course the paint people.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

It’s a complex problem, with seemingly no easy answer. For example one small two stroke scooter like you see thousands of in Indonesia etc. pollutes several times more than a full size modern pollution controlled automobile, yet they are made by the millions I’m sure every year.

So are all the big companies that make billions off of manufacturing millions of these scooters evil, disreputable companies or are they good guys for giving inexpensive transportation to millions of poor people?

DDT was outlawed in the US in 1972 as being a really, really bad thing for the environment, yet China and India manufacturer tens of thousands of metric tons of the stuff each year still.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

In the Sea Hawk case, it is quite simple. The company and those who own and manage it committed felonies against their customers and the U.S. government. How you can come in here and rationalize that is beyond me.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

They went to jail for “selling an unregistered pesticide” in the US. It’s hard to stretch that into a high moral crime that will poison the world. I can buy Seahawk paints at my local emporium. I won’t because the paint I’ve been using for years works fine and according to a lot of stories, Sea Hawk doesn’t work very well sometimes.

But if someone approached me with a bottom paint that lasted much longer and was legal to apply in my location and had sufficient reviews to make an informed decision on its effectiveness, I’d buy it in a minute.

The next time something goes wrong on my boat, I’ll drop you an email to see whether it was an accident, lack of timely maintenance or just whether I deserved it.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Spin it any way you like. The truth however is easily found by people who still care about doing business with convicted felons. Clearly you don't have a problem with it:

Federal prosecutors charged a Florida paint and coatings manufacturer with conspiring to unlawfully produce and continue sales of a bottom paint containing the pesticide tributyltin methacrylate, or TBT, and falsely representing to customers and distributors that it was in compliance with federal law.

The company “willingly” acted “to defraud the United States, that is, to impede, impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful functions of the EPA in enforcing federal environmental regulations,” the indictment said.

https://www.passagemaker.com/trawler...0Tommy%20Craft.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Is a link available for the case outcome? Being *indicted* doesn't mean one is guilty by any stretch. I am curious if evidence supported the indictment

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

You think the US District Attorney brings an indictment based on bullsh*t? They all pleaded guilty. :rolleyes:

https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/indus...d-coating-case

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

Well fstbttms, I don't know if you are purposefully being disingenuous or are just uninformed.

CALIFORNIA

Legislation was passed in California to restrict copper bottom paints in 2018. While it is still permitted in reduced amounts further restrictions are being considered according to the letter I received today from California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)

3 CCR § 6190: Copper-Based Antifouling Paints and Coatings was passed and effective in California on July 1, 2018, and this was not 8-10 years ago, but just 2 years ago. Info bulletins from DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) say that "At largest marinas, additional actions may be needed", due to the fact that (DCu) and associated toxicity still exceed California water quality criteria. "This does not apply to commercial vessels: Passenger ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, work boats, fishing vessels, etc".

WASHINGTON

As for the Washington legislation,

Yes, on June 11, 2020 the Washington legislature passed a revision of 70.300.020 RCW Dispositions RECREATIONAL WATER VESSELS—ANTIFOULING PAINTS which amended the bill so that it now takes effect on Jan 1, 2026 (with some interim steps and checkpoints) and that is where it stands at this time. That is not a "potential ban", it is a definitive ban that now takes effect on that date. The law states that no recreational water vessel manufactured with antifouling paint containing copper may be sold in the State of Washington, nor can any paint containing copper be sold in the State of Washington. I didn't read the whole law but I assume it also forbids application of paint containing copper. Current copper levels in bottom paint usually range from 25 - 75%.

There is of course the potential that this law will be rescinded entirely or replaced by a ban similar to California's.

It is interesting to read the entire report from the Washington State Department of Ecology. After reviewing a very large number of studies Ecology was unable to conclude that copper leeching from bottom paints does any long term damage to non-targeted organisms, and that alternatives were likely to be worse. That report from September 2019 resulted in the legislature's action to delay the implementation. Based on that I think it would be out of line to claim that people who use copper bottom paints are "part of the problem."

COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

It appears that commercial vessels have no legal restrictions., The VGP addresses a completely different topic and other laws give no legal restrictions.

VGP
As far as I can determine, the VGP (Vessel General Permit) which was created by the EPA under the authority of the Clean Water Act of 1972, and is intended to be renewed every 5 years. It was first issued in the 2008 VGP (v1) then subsequently updated in 2013 (v2) and in 2019 (v3), but as far as I can find this VGP covers discharges from vessels, not antifouling coatings.

USCG 33
Title 33-NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS, CHAPTER 51-CLEAN HULLS, SUBCHAPTER I-GENERAL PROVISIONS. Clean Hull Act of 2010 (33 U.S.C. §§ 3801 et seq, 2.2.4 Anti-Fouling Coatings/ Hull Coating Leachate

Reading all the references I can find there is no US law covering antifouling coats on commercial vessels other than restrictions against organic tin (covered in 33 USC, mentioned above). The section on hull coating goes no farther than defining best management practices which include the statement, "When vessels spend considerable time in these waters (Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego, California and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach)... vessel owners/operators shall consider using anti-fouling coatings that rely on a rapidly biodegradable biocide or another alternative rather than copper based coatings.

LACK OF JUSTIFICATION

Many commercial vessels have immersed surface areas which are over 1000 times as large as a typical 40 foot sailboat. A commercial harbor with 4 ships is therefore likely to cause as much environmental damage as a marina of 4000 sailboats, and many commercial harbors are also contained in areas in which leeching of copper can remain concentrated similar to what can happen in a marina. Further, many ports around the United States typically have dozens of commercial vessels anchored or berthed, and while they don't remain there as long, when one leaves another takes its place, so the explanation that recreational vessels have concentrations which cause environmental damage but that ships do not seems to overlook the possibility that commercial vessels can also contribute and should have equal restrictions.

Then there are the excluded vessels which quite often are berthed in areas adjacent to or included in marinas, such as passenger ferries, excursion vessels, tug boats, work boats, fishing vessels, etc. If it is only marinas which are the problem, then why are these other marina occupants not subject to the restrictions?

All together, it seems to me that the common justification for excluding commercial vessels is based more on lobbying and the cost to the commercial operator than on any logical justification.

This is not to say that further scientific studies are not needed nor that there isn't a good chance that some change in how we keep our boat bottoms clean is not going to be justified and required at some point in time. However you cannot save the world by attacking boat owners who think that copper bottom paint is OK.

And you ought to restrict your use of cheap insults, it does not help prove your case.

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

That’s know as history.
Ford fought the unions and had people killed, so we should boycott Ford now? Mitsubishi was a major manufacturer in WWII and the Japanese committed horrible war crimes, should we boycott Japan? How about Germany?
Closer to home the US government committed war crimes and genocide against the native population. What do we do about that?
That’s all history, and has not much to do with the present.

Seahawk’s Officers apparently committed crimes in the past, they got caught and they paid for it, so you think they should have renamed the company Datsun or something?
What is your point?

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 

If you think I should avoid doing business with "convicted felons," then why would I ever want to give them back the right to vote?