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)

Woodland Hills 15-01-2020 06:11

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Bump to top

rudykruger 15-01-2020 08:29

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3055807)
When you apply an anti fouling paint that has been banned by almost every seafaring nation on the planet because of its horrific effect on the environment...

I know, and isn’t it fabulous?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3055807)
...you get what you deserve. No sympathy here, chief. I hope this costs you thousands.

:smitten: You're a cutie

Boatguy30 26-04-2020 09:42

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
So what kind of wear are people getting as far as miles per coat especially on higher speed boats. It's seems like my boat really wears off the paint, especially anything not very hard.

44 is available here in Panama, but very expensive at $300+ per gallon. I guess if you never have to clean it, maybe it last 2 years before wearing thin on a cat.

Of course, at the moment just sitting here.

C Skip R 26-04-2020 18:56

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy30 (Post 3126139)
So what kind of wear are people getting as far as miles per coat especially on higher speed boats. It's seems like my boat really wears off the paint, especially anything not very hard.

44 is available here in Panama, but very expensive at $300+ per gallon. I guess if you never have to clean it, maybe it last 2 years before wearing thin on a cat.

Of course, at the moment just sitting here.

Its definitely expensive over $500 gal in the Caribbean. It should last you a minimum of two years and probably three. It cannot be applied over any bottom paint except islands 44.

fstbttms 26-04-2020 19:47

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by C Skip R (Post 3126463)
It cannot be applied over any bottom paint except islands 44.

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.

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.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 09:55

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sailorboy1 (Post 3234149)
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.

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

a64pilot 16-09-2020 10:15

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234144)
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."

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.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 10:18

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 3234174)
Operative word to me here is did, as in past tense.

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.

sailorboy1 16-09-2020 10:24

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234159)
Boat owners and hull cleaners want the same thing- an anti fouling paint that is effective and durable. Nobody likes cleaning sh*tty paint.

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

fstbttms 16-09-2020 10:29

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sailorboy1 (Post 3234181)
Boat owners don't want to have to clean the hull, period! To us paint that grows stuff isn't paint that works!

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.

sailorboy1 16-09-2020 10:47

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234185)
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.

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.

a64pilot 16-09-2020 10:51

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.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 11:02

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 3234214)
It’s a complex problem, with seemingly no easy answer.

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.

Bycrick 16-09-2020 14:18

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.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 14:36

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick (Post 3234358)
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.

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.

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 15:15

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234373)
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.

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

fstbttms 16-09-2020 15:46

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234397)
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

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

wingssail 16-09-2020 15:47

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234016)
"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.

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

CALIFORNIA

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.

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,

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3233829)
Washington has enacted legislation that pushes any potential ban on copper-based paints in that state back to 2026.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3233829)
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.

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.

a64pilot 16-09-2020 15:54

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?

Bycrick 16-09-2020 15:57

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?

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 16:31

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234423)

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-read the article you linked. The parent company plead guilty to conspiracy, not Sea Hawk. Sea Hawk pled guilty to distribution of an unregistered pesticide, as was stated upthread.
Apparently the parent company took Sea Hawk along for the ride, willingly or unwillingly, because if they had been in the original conspiracy, they would have had the same fate. Only the parent company met the burden of proof on that front.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 16:32

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wingssail (Post 3234424)
Well fstbttms, I don't know if you are purposefully being disingenuous or are just uninformed.

Now who's being disingenuous? Your initial post flat out stated that beginning next year, copper-based anti fouling paints would not be available in Washington but that is simply not the case. As I pointed out (and you just confirmed), the earliest a ban would go into effect (if indeed, one goes into effect at all) will be 2026. And the reason it keeps getting pushed back is twofold: 1.- There are no effective non-copper alternatives and 2.- studies are showing that copper loading in our waterways may not be the problem earlier studies showed it is.

As for California's situation- Your description of what the regulations said and do is erroneous. The new regulations did not restrict in any way how much copper an anti fouling paint product may contain. What they did do is determine how much copper a paint can legally leach into the water. That led to a reformulation of some high leaching products so that they could come into compliance. But otherwise, it is business as usual in California's anti fouling paint market with many products continuing to contain 50-75% copper by weight. And in fact, the two paints that I have long recommended as being the most effective of their respective types did not require reformulation at all. As far as California boat owners and hull cleaners are concerned, the new regulations were implemented without notice or deleterious effect.

BTW- as a board member of the California Professional Divers Association, I was asked to confer with the Department of Pesticide Regulation about these new rules. I assure you that I am not uniformed.

You also mentioned the situation in Marina del Rey. The idea of banning copper-based paints in that marina has been tossed around for some years now. But it is such a politically unpopular idea that has never gotten any real traction. And even if it were to come to pass there or in the few other harbors that are significantly impaired for copper (Newport Bay, Shelter Island Yacht Basin), those would be decisions made at the regional or municipal level. They would not constitute a statewide ban, which is the topic of our discussion.

I'm not going to debate you further about commercial shipping or the regulations under which they fall. You can bitch and moan all you want about how unfair it is to recreational boaters that large vessels are handled differently but it's a case of apples and oranges. That isn't going to change no matter how much you whine about it it and in any case, it really falls outside of my purview as a boat maintenance professional.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 16:37

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234454)
Re-read the article you linked. The parent company plead guilty to conspiracy, not Sea Hawk. Sea Hawk pled guilty to distribution of an unregistered pesticide, as was stated upthread.
Apparently the parent company took Sea Hawk along for the ride, willingly or unwillingly, because if they had been in the original conspiracy, they would have had the same fate. Only the parent company met the burden of proof on that front.

You don't have a grasp of the situation. The Sea Hawk executives (actually the New Nautical Coatings executives) went to prison because the "parent company" and Sea Hawk are differentiated by paper only. Sea Hawk is not a subsidiary of large, faceless corporation. Sea Hawk is merely the name of the paint products with which we are familiar. New Nautical Coatings is the name of the company that manufactures the paints. But the whole outfit is a small, family-owned company.

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 16:41

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234460)
Then why did the Sea Hawk executives go to prison? I'll tell you why- because the "parent company" and Sea Hawk are differentiated by paper only. Sea Hawk is not a subsidiary of large, faceless corporation. The whole outfit is a small, family-owned company.

The executives of Sea Hawk went to prison for distribution of an unregistered pesticide. Served less time and paid substantially less in fines. It's all in the article you linked. The evidence did not support that Sea Hawk was part of the conspiracy indictment. I never said they were innocent, I just stated they were not found guilty of everything they were indicted on.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 17:28

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234466)
The executives of Sea Hawk went to prison for distribution of an unregistered pesticide. Served less time and paid substantially less in fines. It's all in the article you linked. The evidence did not support that Sea Hawk was part of the conspiracy indictment. I never said they were innocent, I just stated they were not found guilty of everything they were indicted on.

You don't get it. Sea Hawk/New Nautical Coatings- same, same, all samey same. When we say "Sea Hawk executives" we are talking about the New Nautical Coatings executives. They are the same people. Sea Hawk is merely one of the products of the company that these guys run.

From the website:

American Made and Owned Manufacturer of Sea Hawk Paints for over 40 years, New Nautical Coatings, Inc. was established in 1978 and is dedicated to bringing only the highest quality products to today’s mariner.

And BTW- they didn't only plead guilty to selling an unregistered pesticide. I know you like to spin this as some sort of misdemeanor but it's not. They committed federal felony offenses.

David Norrie pleaded guilty to “willfully conspiring to corruptly obstruct the due and proper administration of law under which a pending proceeding was being had before the Environmental Protection Agency.”

And in addition to the personal prison time these guys all did, the company itself was fined $1.2 million dollars.

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10.

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


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.