Should this Forum have a dedicated Wooden Working Craft category ?

[Susanne@PB&F]

To state the obvious, wood is pretty much the only material we can predictably grow more of in a broad range of species for a broad range of applications on the hull.

Focussing on wooden working craft under a dedicated category would allow concentrating on the inherent 'sustainability' of the material and the 'lower-carbon' nature of such craft.

WOODENBOAT magazine is in a unique historic position to lead in the re-assertion of wood-based construction-methods in the context of reducing carbon across a range of 'western' working craft.

On the background of extant wooden working craft here and from anywhere around the globe, discussing various opportunities could add to the political legitimacy of the material under progressively growing concerns of 'sustainability (there's a pun in there somewhere).

We are all familiar with recent/current-vintage wooden Lobsterboats, Navy Minesweepers, Whalewatchers, luxury Charterboats etc. More or less aggressive pursuit of further options to use wood as the primary hull-material in the working craft universe should have distinct advantages for designers, builders, over readers and environmentally-minded activists, to would-be operators so far leary of 'plant-matter' in their future.

With WOODENBOAT's reputation and near global availability, this could be a rewarding addition to our discourse, enjoyment, and political relevance of the magazine and this forum. After all, wood has always offered a lot, and might reassert itself again, as other more 'finite' materials go 'stratospheric' costwise and raise concerns about their carbon-footprint.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Looks like the 'action' on this topic is over on 'Building/etc.' Add your view or just keep track there !

[rbgarr]

You could lock this thread also, with a link shown to the other thread.

[john welsford]

A dedicated wooden workboat design and or build category?
I think that would be a very good idea.

John Welsford

[Susanne@PB&F]

Hello Peter,
I'd like to keep it within this Site for several reasons:
1. This is the primary Go-To location for 'wooden boats'.

2. Quite a few of our wooden pleasure-boat lovers may have odd prejudices when it comes to the use of the material for commercial purposes. Which may result in them not being the best ambassadors for the cause if they are not in immediate proximity to the matter being discussed. Sharing and thus growing the knowledge-base for wood in these applications might indeed enrich the discourse, spread 'fact'-based thinking amongst all afficionados of the stuff, and thus broaden the discussion and use.

3. In a similar vein, would-be commercial users consulting this site would find a rich body of work, discussions, facts on the material and its various uses, thus rapidly acquiring familiarity and thus comfort with the 'wooden boat' universe by accessing relevant bits and pieces of this electronic archive. This is THEE place to discuss the matter anywhere on the globe.

4. Our hard-core 'anti-vegetable-matter' purveyors of 'sober' hull-materials convictions would find themselves in an serious, since very mature environment, which might challenge their deep-seated - as in unexamined - preferences for so-called 'advanced'/industrial/non-renewable materials presumed to be 'superior across the board'. Their dominance in contemporary industrial/High-Carbon boat-building in general has not resulted in a balanced weighing of options for prospective clients, often dismissing the matter as the preoccupations of 'romantics' - see sister-thread under 'Building'.

As quite a few might agree, wood has lot of 'life' left in it beyond Bolger-boxes or Bolger's most expensive voluptuous Museum-quality floating assemblies of structures of rare species and stunningly-matched veneers 'miles deep' under 20 coats of hand-rubbed varnish. It is the oldest industrial material in durable construction of boats known to man. And it will continue to matter.

[Jim Ledger]

Instead of one thread in Building and Repair, and an identical in Designs, you should have just put one thread in the Bilge.

By your inflamatory remarks and dismissive attitude for opinions that don't agree with yours, your lack of reasoned response to valid arguments and your sly digs, you're setting a Bilge-like tone that doesn't really belong up here.

Nobody's said anything in either of your threads that deserves a response like that.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Say, what ??

Who feels violated by this thread ? Where's the offense ?

You seem to just dislike any robust reality-check questioning limited-range orthodoxies. And beyond locally reinforcing wooden working craft with various metals and plastics, most participants in this thread engage the discussion on the assumption that wood is useful stuff for this application.

'Down there' and 'up here' seems a personal approach, somewhat out of keeping with an open forum, this age, and this location.

Opinion is good. Being aggravated by substantive perspectives and actual options seems unconstructive.

[Philip Maynard]

If you look at the magazine or the forum, the target reader sure isn't working boatmen. I'd be surprised if professionals have time for fancy pretentious eco BS but it could have great entertainment value.

[Susanne@PB&F]

"Eco-BS" as an idea only appeals to the under-initiated. Commercial "professional" Fishing depends of 'eco'-knowledge, -practices and long-term outlook to make the industry sustainable. This is only about remaining commercially and politically viable. Check sister-Thread under 'Building-'.

And what would be wrong with attracting some of that potential readership ? WOODENBOAT is not a refugium from reality, is indeed powered fiscally by very commercial principles. And builders can always use another contract.

[Jim Ledger]

WOODENBOAT is not a refugium from reality

Since when?

[Antonio Majer]

...refugium peccatorum

[Jim Ledger]

...refugium peccatorum

And we like it like that.

[Antonio Majer]

And we like it like that.

yes, for the light-hearted sinners

[Nauvoo]

A dedicated Working Craft category would cover many bases, and invite information and discussion from real builders and users. I think it's very much needed and would see a lot of reading and posting traffic.

I like working craft, and I'm behind the proposition that it's necessary to move in the direction of a more efficient and sensible use of resources (materials and fuel) in all aspects of boating. I also think that information shared on that subject would be a huge help to amateur builders, be they professional fishermen or not, in making boat building decisions.

I'm sorry to have to say it in my first post, but looking over this and the other thread it seems there are a few who simply have a bone to pick with the OP. That's a shame; their repeated taunts are probably discouraging others from participating.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Another ERSTER Drive-By...

[Susanne@PB&F]

Welcome Nauvoo,
Ignore ERSTER and his Group. They suffer from the 'I hate Wood for serious purpose' problem. They'll get over it - or not.
Wood is too relevant a material to have these 'Termites' have at it unbridled.

[Jim Ledger]

Welcome Nauvoo,
Ignore ERSTER and his Group. They suffer from the 'I hate Wood for serious purpose' problem. They'll get over it - or not.
Wood is too relevant a material to have these 'Termites' have at it unbridled.

They also suffer from having built a boat or two and recognize a fraud when they see one.

You evasions and refusal to engage the simplest question raises the possibility that you don't really know much about the construction of the type of boats you that you so fervently endorse.

You blow in here like Moses coming down from the mountain and expect to hand out your gospel unquestioned and we're all supposed to 'roll over".

[Susanne@PB&F]

More Termites around these parts.

Any new readers of this Thread may want to look at the Sister-Thread in the Building... Forum for the progressivedly comedic record offered by some in response to the sensible proposal that caught your eye at the top of the Thread. You have a lot of opportunity to balance the discussion, as Messrs. Ledger, Wright and Erster are now down to doing things with - or to (?) - 'inflatables'.

Nauvoo understood the point after the first read.

Termites have other interests...

[Dave Wright]

Here's a free advertisement for you.

Your 69'-11" X 14'-7" X 3'-1" (8'-2" board down) 61,000 lbs full load displacement, fir plywood and blue (pink?) foam commercial fishing vessel with up to 9" ply/foam/ply hull thickness in way of the fish holds. Circa 2005 I think.

Best wishes and go for it!

[Nauvoo]

Susanne,

Thank you for the welcome .

They insist that your thread promotes a self interest, yet I hear you promoting new ideas and inviting discourse. Fortunately the dissenters can be counted on less than one hand.

If the moderators are against this idea in the end, perhaps you would be willing to introduce these ideas as individual threads, as time permits?

Speak to your partner about answering with legitimate replies and both of you guys and girls will be taken seriously.

I don't know and haven't met Susanne but so far she's running rings around her adversaries without help from anyone.

Her ideas should and will be taken seriously, despite attempts to shout her down.

[Dave Wright]

......
Her ideas should and will be taken seriously, despite attempts to shout her down.

Absolutely right Nauvoo and welcome to you. Fortunately Susanne's ideas are available for all in numerous published articles so you'll be able to study them further.

Here's one (direct quote, MAIB Vol 25, #8, Sept 1, 2007): "Plywood is the ONLY choice for rapid one-off construction of custom hulls (100+ feet) that require the inherent positive attributes listed here. Hulls built this way can be extensively modified without violating any matrix and compromising structural integrity."

Sounds good to me. I'm sure you'll be anticipating, along with me and many others, the launch and christening of the "Pro Bono 100" at a Greenfield yard in the near future.

[andrewe]

Nauvoo, you are either rather naive or a troll. I can't be alone in having to read Susanne's stuff several times to figure out what she is trying to say. Not a good way to get yourself across.

Oh. I expect to get some comment or other to suggest I suffer from a cognitive problem or some such. I can live with it.
A

[peter radclyffe]

not at all Andrew , Susanne, can you please tell us clearly what it is you want

[Nauvoo]

Nauvoo, you are either rather naive or a troll.

Well, since you have decreed that those are the only two possible choices, I must confess: I'm a naive troll . So sue me.

I'm also glad, Andrewe, that you have learned to live with your cognitive problem.

Therein lies the problem - none of the critics - who thus far number very few in light of the size of this forum - are willing to consider any point of view other than the very narrow one they've repeatedly bleated here.

Susanne is asking the moderators to provide a platform to discuss the use of wood as a primary construction material somewhere we don't see it anymore - commercial craft.

I would suggest that whatever techniques evolve from that approach would also benefit us when used for the building of recreational craft - another commercial endeavor.

No where does she imply that such a platform would be used to advertise her N.A. wares. She would (and should) participate and add to our knowledge.

[Paul Pless]

Therein lies the problem - none of the critics - who thus far number very few in light of the size of this forum - are willing to consider any point of view other than the very narrow one they've repeatedly bleated here.

Susanne is asking the moderators to provide a platform to discuss the use of wood as a primary construction material somewhere we don't see it anymore - commercial craft.

I'd like to make a couple of points if I may... first its kinda presumptive maybe sorta just a little... for a relative forum newbie such as Susanne to take it upon herself to proclaim a need for a new subforum. And, secondly, and more pragmatically, why the need for a new subforum, won't the various topics fit quite well right here in the designs section?

[S/V Laura Ellen]

I'd like to make a couple of points if I may... first its kinda presumptive maybe sorta just a little... for a relative forum newbie such as Susanne to take it upon herself to proclaim a need for a new subforum. And, secondly, and more pragmatically, why the need for a new subforum, won't the various topics fit quite well right here in the designs section?

I'm with Paul on this issue.
We already have some lightly used sections that should meet the needs of any posts concerning working craft. Lets see how this works:
If it's about building or repairing working craft you can use the Building/Repair section.
If it's about designs related to working craft you can use the Designs/Plans section.
If it's about people or places involved in the design/construction/operation of working craft you can use the People & Places section.

What is it about people always wanting something new, the sections of the forum may be used but they still work, most still under manufacturers warranty. For those of you that figure you just have to have a shiny new section on the forum, I suggest you go with a preowned section and get yourself a "new-section" scented air freshener. (It should be noted that no amount of air fresheners can removed the stink from the bilge.)

But if we have to have new sections I suggest:
I may appreciate a schooner section.
Margo may appreciate a Concordia section.
Thorne may appreciate a row/sail section.
Tylerdurden may appreciate a conspiracy & doomsday section.

What you say, we already have sections for those...
Right you are!

[outofthenorm]

I can't resist de-constructing this diatribe, just in case anyone is taking her seriously. The errors, contradictions and statement of opinion as fact are rampant and IMO, ridiculous.

1. This is the primary Go-To location for 'wooden boats'.

As a generic statement, this may be a valid assertion, but it is hardly a fact. However, she is using the generic assertion to support a specific debating point. The generic should be viewed with special skepticism because the actual discussion concerns commercial wooden boats, rather than those meant for recreation. The readership of the magazine and the members of this Forum are, by and large, recreational users - an assertion not in dispute.

2. Quite a few of our wooden pleasure-boat lovers may have odd prejudices when it comes to the use of the material for commercial purposes.

The poster has made it clear elsewhere who she means to target with the possessive adjective "our". The presumption that such people belong to her in even the slightest sense is offensive, to me at least. Further, her characterization of their opinions as "odd prejudices" seems to be based solely on the fact that they differ from hers. The "odd" label is insulting and dismissive, and is offered with no support or justification at all.

Which may result in them not being the best ambassadors for the cause if they are not in immediate proximity to the matter being discussed.

I'm not certain I know what she is attempting to say here. However, all she has really offered is an unsupported judgement on the fitness of certain people to discuss the "cause", whatever that is. The last section, "if they are in not in immediate proximity to the matter", makes absolutely no sense of any kind - it's barely English. "Immediate proximity" is a nonsense construction that has no meaning at all in this context.

Sharing and thus growing the knowledge-base for wood in these applications might indeed enrich the discourse, spread 'fact'-based thinking amongst all afficionados of the stuff, and thus broaden the discussion and use.

I could comment on the baffle-gab, new-age nature of a phrase such as "sharing and thus growing the knowledge-base for wood in these applications". She says 'growing', but she actually means 'increasing', 'enhancing' or 'improving'. One wonders why she didn't just say one of those things. I would also question the use of quotes around the word fact.

3. In a similar vein, would-be commercial users consulting this site would find a rich body of work, discussions, facts on the material and its various uses, thus rapidly acquiring familiarity and thus comfort with the 'wooden boat' universe by accessing relevant bits and pieces of this electronic archive. This is THEE place to discuss the matter anywhere on the globe.

First, in a similar vein to what, exactly? Second, any would-be commercial user would already find this site to be a rich source of information - an extensive 'knowledge-base' in fact (Quotes used properly, you might notice) that many people have already used and acknowledged. As a newbie here, she likely doesn't know about them.

4. Our hard-core 'anti-vegetable-matter' purveyors of 'sober' hull-materials convictions would find themselves in an serious, since very mature environment, which might challenge their deep-seated - as in unexamined - preferences for so-called 'advanced'/industrial/non-renewable materials presumed to be 'superior across the board'.

Once one struggles past the baffle-gab, we find a textbook example of logical fallacy - in this case the belief that the assumed truth of one assertion (the preferences are 'deep-seated') proves the truth of the other (the preferences are 'unexamined'). It's an old debating trick that depends on speed of assault to get past the opponent's defenses. It's a basic "bullshite baffles brains" approach.

Their dominance in contemporary industrial/High-Carbon boat-building in general has not resulted in a balanced weighing of options for prospective clients, often dismissing the matter as the preoccupations of 'romantics' - see sister-thread under 'Building'.

This is confusing, but in fact it contains the only statement I can find anywhere in this that has merit enough to be discussed. However, the matter to be discussed is not the concept of building in low-carbon materials, but rather the truth of the assertion (not fact) that the debate 'in general has not resulted in a balanced weighing of options for prospective clients'. The problem is that she would then rather refer us to a contentious conversation elsewhere than actually have a conversation here.

As quite a few might agree, wood has lot of 'life' left in it beyond Bolger-boxes or Bolger's most expensive voluptuous Museum-quality floating assemblies of structures of rare species and stunningly-matched veneers 'miles deep' under 20 coats of hand-rubbed varnish.

I'm sorry if I don't get the point, but is she actually suggesting that anyone thinks that Mr. Bolger's boats are the 'ne plus ultra' of wooden boats, commercial or otherwise? Is she suggesting that all of us build boats that require or even suit 20 coats of varnish? It's clearly nonsense.

It is the oldest industrial material in durable construction of boats known to man. And it will continue to matter.

Another old debating trick: End a diatribe with an assertion that you know your audience will accept. If you've been successful in baffling them with what came before, they end up thinking they agree with you, because finally you said something that made sense. Let's avoid falling for it here, shall we?

- Norm

[andrewe]

Nauvoo,
Nice to see you are up to speed on the OPs style of taunting, I put it as bait, easy catch.
This is about fishing, no?
A

[Mike Vogdes]

I'm with Paul on this issue.
We already have some lightly used sections that should meet the needs of any posts concerning working craft. Lets see how this works:
If it's about building or repairing working craft you can use the Building/Repair section.
If it's about designs related to working craft you can use the Designs/Plans section.
If it's about people or places involved in the design/construction/operation of working craft you can use the People & Places section.

What is it about people always wanting something new, the sections of the forum may be used but they still work, most still under manufacturers warranty. For those of you that figure you just have to have a shiny new section on the forum, I suggest you go with a preowned section and get yourself a "new-section" scented air freshener. (It should be noted that no amount of air fresheners can removed the stink from the bilge.)

But if we have to have new sections I suggest:
I may appreciate a schooner section.
Margo may appreciate a Concordia section.
Thorne may appreciate a row/sail section.
Tylerdurden may appreciate a conspiracy & doomsday section.

What you say, we already have sections for those...
Right you are!

Another vote for leaving things as they are... No reason what so ever to start another section of the forum to accommodate wood commercial craft when all possible topics can already be placed in the existing sections. PB&F have been long time forum members and their "Robin Jean" boat design seems like a very interesting design. Its ashame Susanne is now caught up in slugfest in two different threads about the same non issue.

[andrewe]

Another vote for leaving things as they are... No reason what so ever to start another section of the forum to accommodate wood commercial craft when all possible topics can already be placed in the existing sections. PB&F have been long time forum members and their "Robin Jean" boat design seems like a very interesting design. Its ashame Susanne is now caught up in slugfest in two different threads about the same non issue.

Quite, there has been very little said about Comercial wooden boats on either of the threads that wouldn't fit in the existing sections. The rest should be in the bilge.
A

[J. Dillon]

Should this Forum have a dedicated Wooden Working Craft category ?

NO

JD

[Susanne@PB&F]

It is official. NAUVOO and Susanne @PB&F are correct in their understanding of the topic.

To refresh, and re-stimulate contrarians' letter-by-letter text-critical analysis, deepening of personally-dug conceptual potholes, and other assorted 'sporting impulses' generally categorizable as 'jousting' - in contrast to considering the following proposition:
(It sounds simple and obvious enough, but not necessarily for all...)

To state the obvious, wood is pretty much the only material we can predictably grow more of in a broad range of species for a broad range of applications on the hull.

Focussing on wooden working craft under a dedicated category would allow concentrating on the inherent 'sustainability' of the material and the 'lower-carbon' nature of such craft.

WOODENBOAT magazine is in a unique historic position to lead in the re-assertion of wood-based construction-methods in the context of reducing carbon across a range of 'western' working craft.

On the background of extant wooden working craft here and from anywhere around the globe, discussing various opportunities could add to the political legitimacy of the material under progressively growing concerns of 'sustainability (there's a pun in there somewhere).

We are all familiar with recent/current-vintage wooden Lobsterboats, Navy Minesweepers, Whalewatchers, luxury Charterboats etc. More or less aggressive pursuit of further options to use wood as the primary hull-material in the working craft universe should have distinct advantages for designers, builders, over readers and environmentally-minded activists, to would-be operators so far leary of 'plant-matter' in their future.

With WOODENBOAT's reputation and near global availability, this could be a rewarding addition to our discourse, enjoyment, and political relevance of the magazine and this forum. After all, wood has always offered a lot, and might reassert itself again, as other more 'finite' materials go 'stratospheric' costwise and raise concerns about their carbon-footprint.

[Michael D. Storey]

Wow. I've never spoken to woodenboat guys before. I mean, not like in a group. Most of my 57 years of boats has been alone. So now I see you have chestnuts under your saddles like everybody else.

By the way, I am interested in a twelve metre named Mitena. Number 10. Anyone have any news?

[outofthenorm]

It is official. NAUVOO and Susanne @PB&F are correct in their understanding of the topic.

Well I am glad it's official. Otherwise how would we know that you actually understand your own post? I'm so happy for you dear, and glad that you have a companion in your enlightenment.

Now that you've stated the proposition again (thanks for not changing a word BTW), I don't know how we missed it in the first place, especially since you repeated it two different categories - a clear breach of Forum etiquette, but never mind. How could you know that such behaviour is considered rude?

Speaking for myself alone, (because it's such a hard, hard question to understand) I think I can finally see it. With your permission, I'll restate it: Should there be a separate category on the Forum to discuss the use of wood as a material from which to build commercial watercraft? Is that right?

I agree with Mr. Dillon. NO, there should not be a separate category.

Any one else care to cast their vote as a simple yes or no?

- Norm

[john welsford]

Looking at all the argument above, I cant really see what its about and to be honest I am not in the least bit interested.
I am though very interested in the plight of the indigenous fisheries in the less developed parts of the world, fisheries which have been encouraged to take up "modern" methods of fishing, methods using large, high powered ships which are capital intensive, expensive to run and which require a big catch just to cover the overhead.
The capital required to start up in this "modern" fishing means that control of the fishery ends up with the outsiders who finance the operations, and the guys and gals who nominally own the vessels have to do what they are told rather than using their skill and knowlege to manage a fishery on a sustainable basis. This has in many parts of the world lead to the fishery becoming so depleted as to become unproductive and when that happens the capital moves to the next quick buck leaving the fishing communities and the population dependent upon them for the income and the food, bereft of both.
I see Suzanne as proposing a style of boat that would so reduce the cost of the boats that outside capital would become very much less influential, and as a consequence the locals have much more power in the management of "their" fishery so achieving a much better proportion of the catch sale price as income, and being much better able to manage the fishery in a manner which will ensure its continuing productivity .
All of which is good news for everybody in the long term.

I've been there in a very modest way and done that style of boat , the geographic area for where I designed had a limit of 15 hp without a "licence" and in order to manage the number of large boats working, the "licence" was very expensive. The horsepower limited the boat size, the boat size and speed limited the catch, the capital required for these small boats was low and well within the reach of the villagers, and the fishing industry that has grown from the use of this size boat has become a very important part of the rehabilititation of the village population in the area.
Thats one example, and not neccessarily the only way to achieve it, but we have all of us seen the results of "capital flight" when a long established industry becomes uncompetitive. All of a sudden, using an example that will be close to many of this forums readers there are steel mills, car factories etc being closed down and whole cities economies collapse, while others buy steel from cheaper suppliers and cars from outside suppliers. The real cost to the country in both social and economic terms is incalculable.
We need to look at fisheries worldwide to avoid this sort of thing, and small, low capital and easily replaced fishing vessels are one of the keys to rejuvenating the small towns dependent upon those fisheries.

Lets talk about those, rather than arguing about semantics.

John Welsford

[Susanne@PB&F]

Another ally in Mr. Welsford. Much appreciated. Even your input though seems to fuel some sort of peculiar response from the likes of Erster et. al.

I propose to just ignore these folks - they've gone so far as to dismiss wood as a plausible hull-material...

Private pools have placed bets on who of these good folks will walk away sulking earliest.

One solitary contribution made to this two-legged Thread by Erster - apparently inadvertendly, judging by his eagerness pointing at it as 'evidence' against my initial proposal - is the reference to the article in Commercial Fisheries News of August '08. Had he done real homework, he'd also have found NATIONAL FISHERMAN of Sept. '04, and November '09; you already know about the latter reference. This is all most serious matter indeed - whether he turns it into mush or not.

Perhaps you could share with me your fisheries-related project privately. Or make it the first 'official' contribution to this Thread as a most coherent endorsement of it - and as a reality-based antidote against the self-indulgences of our more unmotivated friends...

[S B]

Susanne is either a think tank or spokesperson for one. People who get that far into their language, as a rule, can only communicate among themselves and believe, the other people,"not in the know", can be manipulated by their"higher understanding"of the situation. Reality has a way of correcting the problem.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Thinktank ? Nah, more like a 'spittoon'... Just Phil and I working the issue for seven years. Any sensation of 'persecution' by people who disagree with using wood for commercial-craft applications is too unfermented to spend much more time on.

[outofthenorm]

John, not to argue with you on your main point, but it's hardly semantics when posters here, regulars all, have been dismissed by the newcomers as "under-initiated" "termites" who "bleat" their "odd prejudices" and "narrow view points". If Suzanne had simply responded to Peter's direct question "please tell us clearly what it is you want", maybe we could have got somewhere.

Moving on, your concept of low-capital, easily replaced fishing vessels is really the heart of it, IMO. As Erster points out, Suzanne's proposal is 180 degrees from that. Her stance seems to be political, yours seems to be humanitarian.

I've always questioned the wisdom of serving up high-tech systems (like the epoxy/fibreglass Suzanne advocates) as solutions for low-tech problems. To me, the idea of advocating designs based on fibreglass and epoxy in environments where individual survival is at stake is a bit wrong-headed. I suggest that the needs of most of the fisherman you describe could be met with traditional flat-bottom, file-bottom or deadrise skiffs of suitable size for the waters they work in. A skiff can be built from almost anything - plywood in almost any grade, if it's available, locally sawn wood if available, in plank or strip, and even plastic or metal sheet. And if we made 2 kinds of high-tech fasteners available - namely bronze ringnails and cheap construction adhesive - those skiffs can be made safe and relatively durable. FG and epoxy are expensive. Ringnails and polyurethane adhesive are cheap. Skiff designs are free, and building techniques are easily taught, learned and passed on.

If the real need is to help people survive, I think we already have the answers ready to go.

- Norm

[S B]

Thinktank ? Nah, more like a 'spittoon'... Just Phil and I working the issue for seven years. Any sensation of 'persecution' by people who disagree with using wood for commercial-craft applications is too unfermented to spend much more time on.

Do speak up. The fishing industry here is conducted with wooden boats, no need for Fed money to research the possibility of it happening.

[peter radclyffe]

I still believe larch, pines & native hardwoods with which your country is blessed in abundance are greener than synthetics, these woods are ready to use with minimal processing ,
usually face mask & ear defenders
not complete body armour is needed to work them
& the smell , texture & feel of cutting them is rewarding
something ive never found with heavily glued construction
but i am too sensitive to these things
it doesnt bother a lot of people

[andrewe]

There seem to be two areas here, JW is talking about 3rd world fishing where boats are sometimes built by the owners and usually of wood. Ply and PU glue would be perfect, except that local wood is often cheaper.Then there is the 1st world where most of us live.
I watched Portugal come from a 3rd world dictatorship to modern member of the EU. They were still using sails when I first arrived, but not many. Outboards were 8/15hp, mostly running petrol (gas) and kerosene. All were plank on frame and locally built.
A bit later Yamaha started doing special offers: New engines + grp skiffs and help with the fishing licenses. Gradually all the fleet turned to GRP. The big fishing boats were wood too, they are still being repaired, but new builds are steel. Anyway the EU fishing policies (here we go on politics again) have reduced the size of the fleet by a large amount. The wooden boats were the first to go. I didn't see a single ply boat , of any size, working. Talking to the guys, ply was not a good material on cost, repairabilty or durability. Epoxy and glass were expensive. A few tried coating planked boats with polyester and glass. We know what happens next. But they got a couple more years out them.
A friend wanted a small trad build for a tender to his tourist trip 40ft ex fishing boat. No takers for the build in the south. He had to go 500km north to find a yard prepared to do it.

Here in France, the area produces 40% of the oysters in the country. The boats are specialised flat bottomed raft like boxes with cranked up bows. Powered by 200hp O/Bs which can by raised vertically for shallow running and grounding out on the beds. There are many abandoned planked ones and the odd cared for wooden one. No ply again. All the operational ones are aluminium.
There are some plank on frame fishing boats in the 30/40ft range, trawlers and scollop dredgers, I don't think there has been a new one built for some time.


Just observations.
A

[Mark Smaalders]

My concerns and interest are much in line with John Welsford's. I've done some work examining the impact of technological change (and increased capital cost) in indigenous fisheries in Papua New Guinea. I've written a piece about it (Canoes, subsistence and conservation in the Louisiade Archipelago of Papua New Guinea)http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/Trad/15/Smaalders.pdf that may be of interest to some of you – the canoes are amazing craft, and worth a look even if you’re less interested in the fisheries issues.

In those islands the shift that was occurring (from traditional planked sailing proas to fiberglass outboard skiffs) threatened both the marine resources (the ‘glass boats are faster, allow for higher catches, and demand higher incomes due to fuel bills and debt service) and the communities (the wooden boats are an integral element of cultural and trading linkages in the islands that have developed over centuries).

There is a real parallel with the issues that Suzanne and John have raised. Can anyone contribute some additional real world examples?

[Bill Lowe]

Susanne I don't think I like you or your ideas.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Give each other a hug. A big one.

A note on personal style - to each their own: with those giddy 'faces' proliferating on the lapels of a certain folks, things begin to look like those tunics of various operetta-generalissimos...

[Susanne@PB&F]

I would propose for those vocal recent/new arrivals who joined in the Group-Hug' around our most flamboyant friends to read through both Threads and then consider the sources of toxicity to a reasonable discussion. Key words would be that "wood is bad for commercial applications - and particularly in winter" (apparently) etc. The record submitted by certain folks is quite stunning in its intensity and insistence.

The frat-row raucus was great fun for some, but did not add any substance to the general point of this Thread. All 'character-defining word-choices' aimed at my address typically come from guys who lost focus early, in public, often, and still repeating. The initial proposition of this Thread is logical enough; and a few sober folks seem to understand it as such. There will be more such folks - while others lay awake at night rolling more spit-balls...

[john welsford]

About “village” fisheries. Comparisons between them and fisheries such as the Chesapeake or Falmouth ( UK) where the old sailing craft are, or have until recently been fishing are not really valid, these latter fisheries were governed by regulation to manage the catch and preserve a very localized and limited fishery in a very highly populated area, so that’s a very artificial and expensive situation. There are other ways to do that.
Second point, the type of vessel. There has been a suggestion that a simple flat bottomed skiff would suit so there is no need for any design or development work. Not so for several reasons. One is that while the “ flatiron” is common and familiar to those on the East Coast of the USA, its not a type known to the people of the areas that I’m talking about. If the boats are too different they do not gain the acceptance of the users and are used with reluctance if at all.
The boats have to be consistent with their perceptions of what a “good boat” will be, and that generally means that they are quite different to our ideas. Research is needed, and at the time that I was asked to do the job, I was fortunately able to contact through our Defence Department a very keen small boat owner who was stationed in East Timor. Major Pohio was interested enough to go and interview a number of people for me and from that she was able to make some suggestions as to the fishery, the conditions where they would be used and the style of boat.
She was also able to advise as to the skill base of the likely builders, the availability of materials and the economic situation, all of which has an impact on the design .
The availability of materials was a surprise by the way, it seemed that during the Indonesian occupation the forests had been very heavily logged for export of plywood and sawn lumber. The traditional dugout was not feasible due to the lack of logs so alternatives had to be considered.
In addition to that, she advised that the UNFAO had supplied several “fishing boats” that had been a real herd of marine white elephants. Although built locally ply over sawn frames, they were 24ft deep vee planing power boats with 2 x 90 hp motors. The cost, even heavily subsidized, was around US$30,000,00 . The cost of operation was as you can imagine very high, and this in an area where the average wage was around US$14 a day and that in an area with about 60% unemployment.
The style of fishery was also to be considered. A boat suited to tonging for oysters will be different to a boat suited to stop netting, or hauling pots, or longlining and so on.
In this case long lining, cast netting and tending fish traps were the common fishing methods but some trolling was envisaged as there was a seasonal fishery in that respect.
The environment is an issue, in this case the boats were mostly being used in quite open waters, and launched off surf beaches.
Having found all that out, it was evident that a solution that would be quite unconventional by our standards was needed.
I was advised by the principal of the NGO aid agency I was working with that there were “hundreds” of 15 hp Yamaha outboards in containers, and where a boat was available a motor would be provided. These being particularly suited as they were within the “free licence” size, very reliable, easy to service and cheap to run.
The people in this area are used to long slim boats, generally with outriggers ( check out the Indonesian “Banka” style boats) and paddle rather than row.
I had been asked for a short term solution, a very large number of boats were needed and finance was very short. My solution was a “fat canoe” of very simple shape, really a much elongated and high sided plywood power dory with a few unique features. The motor is in a well, the boat has about 800 kg of air tank buoyancy, the frame heads are reinforced and stick up beyond the gunwale so with some heavy bamboo poles a pair of boats can be lashed together to make a big boat for a special purpose ( one pair was seen carrying a Toyota pickup between islands) and the construction kept as simple as possible.
The materials are mostly readily available ( from Australian Plantation grown logs) waterproof bonded utility plywood over lumberyard lumber, the joints engineered for cheap polyurethane adhesives and galvanized fastenings, the paint intended to be cheap plastic paint. Built like that they were about 10% of the cost of the UNFAO design and a fraction of the cost to run.
The NGO sent a boatbuilder up there to establish a boatbuilding school, and a number of supporters, me included toured junkshops collecting tools which were fettled and sharpened and sent up with oilstones and files so the recipients could be taught to maintain them . Each “class” came in, built a couple of boats and graduated with a full set of patterns, (many were illiterate) a set of hand tools sufficient to build these boats, and enough materials for two boats. They went back to their villages, built and sold those boats and bought more materials to carry on. The school, with four builders and one instructor was turning out two boats a week!
In some cases they taught more to build the boats, and one can imagine the type carrying on well beyond its intended short term role.
Some of the thank you letters I received were very humbling, it was one of the most rewarding projects that I’ve been involved in. Since then several small aid agencies have built that same boat and another designed for a similar situation.
The point of this rambling diatribe is that there are many factors in designing a successful boat for these fisheries or communities, and many of those factors are not immediately apparent to the casual viewer. If all of those factors are not considered, then the project wont work. Huge amounts of aid money is wasted every year in this very way.
I believe that there is a place for wooden working boats, ranging from very simple and modest craft such as described above, to quite sophisticated ones. Not only fishing, but many of the 3rd world island, riverine and coastal people would benefit from being able to build and run their own freight and passenger craft, and in doing so retain control and ownership keeping profits and employment local.

I would enjoy discussing the many possibilities and permutations involved.

John Welsford

[Nauvoo]

Amen.

Thank you, John.

For a moment I thought sanity had fled the northeast.

[oznabrag]

Northeastern New Zealand?

[Susanne@PB&F]

Thanks you John Welsford and Nauvoo for injecting some much needed 'oxygen' into this Thread.

Good account by Welsford's on his laudible successful efforts helping out getting an apparently much needed wooden working craft project done, and spawning others. Gratifying indeed to hear about this. Much less prejudice seems to have stood in the way than you might have found elsewhere

Good to see Nauvoo's presence.

I'll wait with related input on policy and hardware issues until late tomorrow. A wooden working craft project demands my attention...

I hope I did not jinx Welsford's effort at keeping the 'Termites' at bay ?!