WB as a voice for the wooden boat community?

[Bob Cleek]

I would enjoy seeing WB take a strong stand on behalf of the wooden boat community to organize wooden boat owners. We are in serious need of organization in the face of what promises to be, at the rate we are going, the end of the traditional wooden boat as we know it. Everywhere one turns, we find eco-fascists outlawing the basic ingredients of wooden boats, whether that be simply ordinary paints and varnish (not to mention red and white lead), effective antifouling coating components, or even the woods we use themselves. Marinas won't rent to us unless we buy hugely inflated insurance policies and even then prohibit sanding and varnishing. Yards refuse to allow us to work on our own boats, fearing "liability," or so they say. We all know that the impact of our hobby on the environment leaves the smallest footprint of just about anything. (Have you ever seen a ski slope in summer or a desert after the off-roaders have been on it?) Yet, I suppose because we are seen as "rich yachtsmen," the boating community is the first to be made an example of when they outlaw this or that. Wooden boats, and particularly traditional and historic wooden boats, ought to be granted an exemption from such constraints. If we don't defend our rights whenever they are challenged, we will soon lose them all. Otherwise, like the buffalo, one of these days one of us is going to look around and realize they are the last traditional wooden boat afloat.

One good start would be a series of articles similar to some of Pete Culler's in the old Mariner's Catalog, which explain how to make your own paint and so on and articles on where to find hard to get materials and parts. We'd better be getting up to speed on those skills or we won't be able to keep on much longer. When there's no option for painting a boat but latex enamel, I'm gonna be outta here!

What say ye?

[BBSebens]

Being a younger guy at the forefront of his wooden boat adventures, I would really enjoy this information. I have a huge appreciation for the old way of doing things, and don't want to see that knowledge get lost.

OTOH, things must evolve and grow. Perhaps one trick is to continue to look at and try new products. Just look at what Epoxy has done for Wooden boats in the last 40(?) years.

[Ian McColgin]

I like old ways and like mixing goos and slops but we also must note what happens when more people do something. One guy exercising the Sea Dog's Perogative over the rail in the morning won't hurt the creek. A few hundred and you have nitrogen pollution. Same with lead based topsides paints and copper based bottom paints.

A real woodenboat organizing effort both honors the best of the older ways while looking to new ways to be less ecologically exploitive. Which the WoodenBoat Magazine seems to do.

[Bob Cleek]

I like old ways and like mixing goos and slops but we also must note what happens when more people do something. One guy exercising the Sea Dog's Perogative over the rail in the morning won't hurt the creek. A few hundred and you have nitrogen pollution. Same with lead based topsides paints and copper based bottom paints.

A real woodenboat organizing effort both honors the best of the older ways while looking to new ways to be less ecologically exploitive. Which the WoodenBoat Magazine seems to do.

At the risk of thread drift here, Ian, I'd have to say it depends on the size of the creek. I have no interest in sailing in sewage and I have considered myself an environmentalist all my life... until the lunatic fringe gave the concept a bad name. A little commonsense is all I ask. If a few hundred guys are peeing in the creek at the same time, I trust that there will be enough "commonsense critical mass" that they'll find a better option. I don't think we all have to install holding tanks and pay pump out fees and live with a boat that smells like a septic tank "to protect the environment." Seals eat salmon every day and poop it out every day. I'd say there are surely "a few hundred" more seals pooping in my "creek" than there are sailors doing the same, and I really can't see the difference between people pooping salmon and seals pooping salmon... or salmon pooping whatever they eat and so on down the food chain.

This whole thing with outlawing the sale of incandescent bulbs to force us all to pay more for compact florescent lamps is a prime example of corporate eco-fascism at its worst. They are pimping the environment to make us buy their more expensive CFLs instead of the cheaper incandescents. Do CFLs use less energy in operation and save energy? You bet they do... BUT their overall "carbon footprint" makes them infinitely more "environmentally costly." It takes more than ten times the energy to make a CFL than an incandescent. The CFLs are full of mercury, making disposal a nightmare, breakage a health hazard, they put out UV and RF radiation and so on... in short, considering energy and environmental costs over their lifetime, CFLs are far less "environmentally friendly" than Edison's incandescent bulb... but they certainly don't put our money in the corporate coffers as efficiently as CFLs. Still, the public drinks the corporations' Kool Aid.

Oil based paints and varnishes do evaporate VOC into the atmosphere. Antifouling coatings that really do kill marine organisms do indeed end up in small amounts on the bottom of the sea, along with just about everything else. However, considered "in parts per billion," their impact is really quite insignificant compared to, say, the emissions generated by the manufacture of compact florescent lamps.

My question is, why are they always picking on us?

[wizbang 13]

My older brother sails a "historic" wood boat, (Mermaid of Carriacou). He has had her about 40 years.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that he thinks the world owes him something cuz he do what he do. Of course, it doesn't quite work out that way.
Traditional boats, they ARE enviro disasters. but then, what isn't.
Good question Bob Cleek, I am gonna think on this more.

[outofthenorm]

I'm with you on this Bob. It seems sometimes like there is a concerted effort to get me (us) to give up what is simple, cheap and works and replace it with what is complex, expensive and unproven. I would be extremely interested in articles on "how to make it", but I fear that even the basic ingredients are going to be impossible to get.

BTW, in Canada, the ban on incandescent bulbs has been lifted. Someone came to their senses it seems. Is it still in place in the USA?

- Norm

[Tom Jackson]

Can anyone think of any localized organization that has attempted to do this? I'd be interested in hearing about it.

TSCA maybe comes closest, having emerged in the 1970s to contest Coast Guard regulations regarding small craft.

I know that in Seattle there is a very strong houseboat owners association, but I can't think of any organization that has evolved to represent the broader network of wooden boat owners, anywhere. The interests, it seems to me, would be very different in, say, Seattle and San Diego, Florida and Maine, Michigan and Texas. Why would a national "organization" work when no local organization has ever sprung up?

[Ian McColgin]

Bob raises a series of points that really could make the 'story arc' (as they call it in modern TV series where each week's new and independent episode also advances some season long plot line) of a bunch of environmental/worker safety/new v old products stories.

For example: Bottom paints. Almost all good fishing boat and yacht harbors have by now almost a century's worth of escalating heavy metal deposits. Even in the '70s when I was looking at dredge spoil management in the Columbia estuary there were ports where the bottom gunk was so toxic that just dredging it caused a cloud of death to drift with the tide and safe disposal was nigh on impossible. Recently when Hyannis inner harbor was dredged the spoil was hazardous enough that it had to be dropped in a capped over pit, which may or may not be a different problem as the pit just touches the clay lens that sits atop our aquifer. So many of us are moving to non-metal anti-fouling. That's lovely but many of the products still have some really interesting VOC issues that are a hazard even to the once-a-year bottom painter and require serious protection for pros.

Remember (before WoodenBoat even existed) when John Gardner's voice in the Fisherman was the sole warning about epoxy hazards to workers?

Remember when it was easy to obtain AA doug fir plywood perfectly wonderful for boat building?

We need more voices like Gardner's of yore and Prof Jagels, who still causes furious letters to the WB editors every time he urges sound and truly sustainable forestry.

It's a balance for sure but in the woodboat world, we are a bit like a lot of cruising boats all anchored for the night in the same creek. We shouldn't be running gensets even a little, much less all night for air conditioning, we shouldn't be doing laundry and putting so much phosphate into a place like Katama Bay that it had to be closed to overnight anchoring. And we should respect and grow from our maritime heritage where every generation has had it's own advances, it's own novelties that overthrew earlier traditions. You might make a boat with a cod head and a mackerel stern for lots of reasons, but not to beat down Buzzard's Bay.

Without being mindlessly politically correct or slavish about it, an editorial policy that encourages some consideration in the articles of how any boat decision involves compromise and trade-off could help foster more critical reflection in our diverse and entertainingly fractious community.

[David Cockey]

The difficulty a publication like WoodenBoat faces in becoming an advocate for certain positions on current issues is not everyone has the same views. It's easy to believe that folks that share my passions have similar views on almost all topics. But it's generally not true. A few years ago TSCA was asked by a member to get involved in the bottom paint issue in California. It was obvious to him and his friends that action was needed. But other members had different views on the topic. So TSCA decided not to get involved since it did not directly affect the viability of traditonal small boats.

[Bob Cleek]

Bob raises a series of points that really could make the 'story arc' (as they call it in modern TV series where each week's new and independent episode also advances some season long plot line) of a bunch of environmental/worker safety/new v old products stories.

For example: Bottom paints. Almost all good fishing boat and yacht harbors have by now almost a century's worth of escalating heavy metal deposits. Even in the '70s when I was looking at dredge spoil management in the Columbia estuary there were ports where the bottom gunk was so toxic that just dredging it caused a cloud of death to drift with the tide and safe disposal was nigh on impossible. Recently when Hyannis inner harbor was dredged the spoil was hazardous enough that it had to be dropped in a capped over pit, which may or may not be a different problem as the pit just touches the clay lens that sits atop our aquifer. So many of us are moving to non-metal anti-fouling. That's lovely but many of the products still have some really interesting VOC issues that are a hazard even to the once-a-year bottom painter and require serious protection for pros.

Remember (before WoodenBoat even existed) when John Gardner's voice in the Fisherman was the sole warning about epoxy hazards to workers?

Remember when it was easy to obtain AA doug fir plywood perfectly wonderful for boat building?

We need more voices like Gardner's of yore and Prof Jagels, who still causes furious letters to the WB editors every time he urges sound and truly sustainable forestry.

It's a balance for sure but in the woodboat world, we are a bit like a lot of cruising boats all anchored for the night in the same creek. We shouldn't be running gensets even a little, much less all night for air conditioning, we shouldn't be doing laundry and putting so much phosphate into a place like Katama Bay that it had to be closed to overnight anchoring. And we should respect and grow from our maritime heritage where every generation has had it's own advances, it's own novelties that overthrew earlier traditions. You might make a boat with a cod head and a mackerel stern for lots of reasons, but not to beat down Buzzard's Bay.

Without being mindlessly politically correct or slavish about it, an editorial policy that encourages some consideration in the articles of how any boat decision involves compromise and trade-off could help foster more critical reflection in our diverse and entertainingly fractious community.

My point exactly, Ian! Epoxy sensitization is a well-recognized phenomena and those who work with epoxy should be aware of it and use it wisely. On the other hand, do we outlaw epoxy because a few idiots might injure themselves with it?

I'm sorry, but my mileage differs on bottom paint. I've watched the environmental industry collect samples of bottom mud from beneath the boatyard elevators where decades of bottom paint scrapings used to be hosed into the creek and then claim that an entire waterway's dredge spoils needed to be burried in some toxic waste disposal site in the middle of Nevada or Utah. The cost of that made dredging economically prohibitive, so the creek is now a mud hole that is only barely navigable at high tides. Oh, and the "heavy metals" they were upset about? Turns out that, plus the silt, was all coming into the waterway from auto exhaust and tire rubber being flushed through the storm drains by the City public works department. We boaters didn't have anything to do with it.

The "environmental industry" is a multi-billion dollar behemouth that sucks cash out of the economy in most instances for no justifiable benefit to the environment at all. All of it costs us money. How many times have you seen a freeway shut down for two or three hours because some "white powder" has spilled and they had to get out all that expensive "hazmat" gear our tax dollars bought to clean up the "spill," only to find out it was a sack of gypsum that fell off a truck. What does it cost to pay all those "certified" guys to "clean up" a bottle of swimming pool chemicals that fell off the pool guy's truck? What does it cost our economy to require landowners to scrape and haul away all the "petroleum contaminated" dirt on a vacant lot that once held a gas station, only to cover it up with asphalt for a parking lot. How many billions of dollars have these shysters made "mitigating the risk" of asbestos-containing (but totally encapsulated) asphalt floor tiles from our schools? (And what greater benefit to students would the same money have provided if it were spent on books and teachers?) Have you ever in your life met a person who suffered as much as the loss of a single IQ score point as a result of eating leaded paint chips as a child? How much of an effect on the earth's environment has all the drying paint used since the beginning of time ever really had? Who can scientifically demonstrate that turpentine evaporating from a coat of paint is any different than VOCs from sap evaporating naturally in the forest. (Obviously, these VOCs are an inherent part of our environment and have to go somewhere when they evaporate, don't they?)

Moreover, has anyone ever compared the real "environmental footprint" of these so-called "green alternatives" they are forcing us to use nowdays? How much energy does it really cost to use water based paints? A good coat of oil based lead housepaint used to last nearly 20 years around here in our mild climate. Now, you are lucky to get half that out of latex paint. What's the "carbon footprint" of two paint jobs instead of one? I'm guessing its a wash, if that, except that the water based stuff makes more work for the painters and more profit for the paint companies! What's the point of adding ethanol to gasoline when it requires far, far more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is ever saved by adding it to our gas? Could it be the ethanol producers and the corn agribusiness interests have something more to gain than "the environment" does? You betcha!

I mean really. Keeping our nest clean is a good thing, but let's not get crazy about it. I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" when it first came out and I still agree that good stewardship of our environment is essential to the welfare of humanity. However, I am totally fed up with people who have turned it into a fad, using scare tactics on the public in order to con us out of our hard earned dollars.

[James McMullen]

Using a term like "Eco-fascists" is not a good way to start though. Instead of enlisting the support of people who might otherwise be on board with a boat built from organic and bio-degradable materials, you automatically alienate them when you start casually throwing around perjoratives like that. Don't fall into the teahadist trap of petty insults and gross oversimplification. You catch more flies with honey, amigo.

[jackster]

Using a term like "Eco-fascists" is not a good way to start though. Instead of enlisting the support of people who might otherwise be on board with a boat built from organic and bio-degradable materials, you automatically alienate them when you start casually throwing around perjoratives like that. Don't fall into the teahadist trap of petty insults and gross oversimplification. You catch more flies with honey, amigo.

I had the same reaction to this thread.
I sincerely hope this new forum section doesn't become just another Bilge-like discussion outlet where one faction rails against the other faction, trying to show how cleverly they can 'dis' the other.

[Bob Cleek]

Using a term like "Eco-fascists" is not a good way to start though. Instead of enlisting the support of people who might otherwise be on board with a boat built from organic and bio-degradable materials, you automatically alienate them when you start casually throwing around perjoratives like that. Don't fall into the teahadist trap of petty insults and gross oversimplification. You catch more flies with honey, amigo.

Who's interesting in catching flies? I'm interested in wasting the little buggers! I'll take a can of Raid over a jar of honey any day! LOL

I hear what you're saying, Jim, but what I'm opposing here are the restraints imposed upon us by "true believers," folks who don't think critically, but like a stampeded herd of lemmings, impose their one-dimensional political will on the rest of us. There's not much that can be done to change a "true believer's" mind short of a bullet to the back of the head. I suppose "singing cum bah ya" may attract some of the "undecideds," but I don't think any of us really have time for that. I use the term "eco-fascists" because it is exact and accurate. I'd be more inclined to agree with you that the frequently used term, "eco-nazis" is not as accurate and more emotionally loaded. Fact is, I doubt you'd find more than 20 percent of the population under the age of 40, if that, who could even define "fascist." LOL

And Jackster, we're a long way from the Bilge here. This is a serious policy discussion. I'm not insulting anybody. Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact. Our world is beset by way too much "feeling" and not enough "thinking" these days and it has to be stopped. The masses are manipulated by "feelings," not by "thoughts." The "Dumbing of America" is in full flower, thanks to corporate oligarchs. We really can't afford the cost of another George W. Bush in our lifetimes.

[jackster]

Bob Cleek.
I do feel that the phrases you use are insults
I can see you have strong, even entrenched, opinions about environmental regulations so I won't waste your time or mine trying to change your mind.
Thanks for your response.

[Ian McColgin]

That's just Bob being crusty. He only objects to vigorous language from lefties and folk on the wrong side of the CPES divide.

[jackster]

Ian McColgin,
Well some of us damn lefties deserve to objected to! Consider me "Objected" Boy, do I feel better.
Thanks.
By the way, what IS the wrong (or right) side of the CPES debate?

[Ian McColgin]

The OTHER side.

[jackster]

Gotcha!

[WI-Tom]

the restraints imposed upon us by "true believers," folks who don't think critically, but like a stampeded herd of lemmings, impose their one-dimensional political will on the rest of us.

It must be quite a burden to be the only one with sincere and carefully thought-out beliefs among a nation of lemmings. Do you object to lemmings that happen to agree with you, or just the ones who disagree? (Some of them might have drunk your Koolaid, after all...)

Tom

[erster]

Who's interesting in catching flies? I'm interested in wasting the little buggers! I'll take a can of Raid over a jar of honey any day! LOL I hear what you're saying, Jim, but what I'm opposing here are the restraints imposed upon us by "true believers," folks who don't think critically, but like a stampeded herd of lemmings, impose their one-dimensional political will on the rest of us. There's not much that can be done to change a "true believer's" mind short of a bullet to the back of the head. I suppose "singing cum bah ya" may attract some of the "undecideds," but I don't think any of us really have time for that. I use the term "eco-fascists" because it is exact and accurate. I'd be more inclined to agree with you that the frequently used term, "eco-nazis" is not as accurate and more emotionally loaded. Fact is, I doubt you'd find more than 20 percent of the population under the age of 40, if that, who could even define "fascist." LOLAnd Jackster, we're a long way from the Bilge here. This is a serious policy discussion. I'm not insulting anybody. Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact. Our world is beset by way too much "feeling" and not enough "thinking" these days and it has to be stopped. The masses are manipulated by "feelings," not by "thoughts." The "Dumbing of America" is in full flower, thanks to corporate oligarchs. We really can't afford the cost of another George W. Bush in our lifetimes.

Thats too darn funny you crusty ole feller.[thanks to our departed Dave],,, Must be the barnicles growing in the wrong areas[tongue planted firmly against cheek] HEHE! We gotta get these Bushes out of office for sure. LOL But anyway do some critical thinking. Who and what side is doing the pimping for curly light bulbs and paddlewheels that spin at a variable rate thats actually killing some endangered species of birds in the name of fellings? LOL! Try being one of the ever increasing numbers of working watermen attempting to catch a fish in just sink nets alone with a ban on sinkers attached to the netting.The sad part is that no one is listening even though numerous companies that you speak about only survive with help from their friends these days, connected at the hip for sure. I agree with you 100 percent too. I stopped reading the brand names long ago and begin to actually read the "rest of the story" on most back sides of the labels and saved myself a lot of money too. Almost any coating is better than no coating on the decling avaliability of the raw materials too. Have you shopped around these days for any real to life Honduras Mahogany, much less quality teak for those deck applications? There is little to no difference when it comes to marine versus homeowner products.

[JoshuaIII]

Well I will add my 2 cents... My and my wife are 100% for ecology, we make our own compost buy mostly local, hunt our meat etc..
All that to say there is a middle to be reach somewhere. Wooden boat are great, I mean compare to a fiberglass boat all build from Petroleum is a big advantage. Yes fiberglass last longer but they do pollute a lot to be build, from war to get the damn thing to importing, transforming, shipping, chemical factory etc...

So yes wood is more green... From there you have to take the lesser of the 2 devil. Stay with not toxic product that make the wood rot easily and actually make waste, or get a bit more toxic product that make the wood last longer. If the wood last longer they will be less tree cut, less transport, less mills so at the end if you calculate it may end up not too bad...

I all for a new product ecological if it let me keep the timber as long as possible, but I won't take the worst either to see dead fish floating around my boat. The right balance is important.

[Bob Cleek]

It must be quite a burden to be the only one with sincere and carefully thought-out beliefs among a nation of lemmings. Do you object to lemmings that happen to agree with you, or just the ones who disagree? (Some of them might have drunk your Koolaid, after all...)

Tom

I suppose it might be, but I hardly consider myself alone. For the record, I have no use for "lemmings" of any type.

[Bob Cleek]

That's just Bob being crusty. He only objects to vigorous language from lefties and folk on the wrong side of the CPES divide.

Yea, they can dish it out, but they cant' take it. Vigorous doesn't add anythign to the content of a discussion, but every once in a while it can be entertaining. I don't object much to "vigorous language" from right wingers only because I consider them beyond redemption! The referenced emotional reaction does, however, illustrate what I was referring to. Really "peeling the onion" on these environmental issues can be a fascinating scientific inquiry. Immediately, though, everybody seems to get emotional. As for "lemmings," I stand with H.L. Menken and P.T. Barnum. Just look at the Republican primary circus if proof is required!

[yesiam]

As one who's list is predominently to starboard I gotta say I am pretty much down with the cleekster. Additionally, the unwillingness in today's society to to call a spade a spade is a big part of the problem.


The term eco-fascist does not seem too harsh to me -- look at the definition of fascist and it seems to fit. One need only look at the power the EPA exhibits. I noticed a report just this week of a family, I think somewhere in the PNW, having their proposed home building site being deemed a wetland and they are being threatened with 37K daily in fines. It appeared that declaring the property a wetland was a pretty good stretch.

Can anybody say gridlock. Appreciate everyones comments here so far.

[Will Wheeler]

If we as wooden boat owners are hoping to get some kind of pass on these issues, we'll have to be a lot better on demonstrating our commitment to the environment and sustainability.

I think it would be naive to say that any traditional economic activity like wooden boat building should be protected from scrutiny because a) it's so much less impactive than other, modern versions and b) that's the way it was down in the old days, and the environment was so much better then, so why worry.

For example, to take an example of another traditional activity, traditional farm techniques in my area had many elements that were highly impactive. They used to cut down ALL trees and attempted to farm on extremely thin soils, graze cattle in swamps and wetlands, plough vertically on relatively steep slopes, used excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers. All of which caused an economic / environmental catrastrophe which hit quite hard by the 20's -- all of the trees were cut down for lumber, slopes started eroding and topsoil was eroded away. By the 30's the only thing that could be done was to repossess many of these properties and plant trees on them. (since they weren't economic as farms, they would become vacant). These lands become the basis of the Simcoe County Forests which are now on a sustainable basis and generate income and serve as recreational areas.

Likewise with wooden boats I think it's ingenuous at best to disregard environmental impacts. The impact on forests is much less impactive than other types of uses, but I think we have to duty to include sustainability as a criteria. Why is mahogany plywood from rainforests so necessary? Is it because it's rarer than Douglas Fir? Why do we have to use lead paint? Just to say that other types of activities have a bigger impact is indefensible. Moaning about the unavailability of old growth timber is just silly - you're being nostalgic about a time period that couldn't last because logging in that time period wasn't carried out in sustainable way.

[coopercdrkey]

I think we have to at least consider the possibility that some of the afore mentioned proscriptions are the result of highly placed, (and highly paid), lobbyists, working diligently in one legislative body or another to outlaw the old fashioned methods and materials in favor of their employers' newer, "better", "greener, (pick one or more), products or procedures.

Giving the eco-activists all the credit is naive.

In the end, it's always about the money....

[Garret]

This is yet another topic that gets "sides" calling each other names. Just as in politics, it not only doesn't get anything improved, it makes matters worse. Additionally, I'd think that everyone here would be for reducing our boats' impacts on the environment.

Having a discussion about what the real effects are is & would be good; I'd like to see more of it.

If we are talking about FG vs. wood boats, can't bottom paint be taken right out of the equation? Both use it, both need it. As far as the rest goes, it would seem to me that the toxicity of an entire boat's worth of epoxy would be far greater than the small amounts used in a carvel boat. Varnishes & paint? I guess that may be a different story - but seeing real #'s would make a big difference. This is where having the funds/backing to do some real research into the actual effects would be worthwhile IMHO.

[Labrador Coaster]

I live on a small island 300 persons, isolated, my boat does not have an holding tank, neither does all the other fishing boats in the region. As early as fifty years ago the vast majority of household garbage got dumped in the sea. Today thats not done and the area is still pristine and beautiful, ( there is more seal poop going in the bay than human). buts thats another debate...

Now if we move this debate to a crowded Marina, or enclosed lake, then obviously there has to be some ''environmental''control placed on the population who use these areas because of the sheer numbers envolved.

And yes a disturbing amount of those products advertised as green are anything but, just business marketing. But I do think each one of us needs to do our part to diminish our personal''environmental footprint.

A while back I was reading in Passagemaker magazine about galvanic corrosion from yachts in a marina running their Air conditioning 24/7 so that their boat would be nice and cool when they came aboard for the weekend.

Coming from a hydro electric producing province that keeps flooding more land in order to provide others with electricity, those kind of stories just make my hair curl.

To guote a forward thinking lady I heard on the radio the other day,

''We can do without wall street a lot easier than we can do without water''

[RFNK]

I think the test of those who claim to be environmentalists or ex-environmentalists is whether they're prepared to compromise their own needs and desires for the benefit of the environment. I think virtually every person I've heard describe themselves as an ex falls into the category of those who are not.

Rick

[Bob Cleek]

I think the test of those who claim to be environmentalists or ex-environmentalists is whether they're prepared to compromise their own needs and desires for the benefit of the environment. I think virtually every person I've heard describe themselves as an ex falls into the category of those who are not.

Rick

I disagree. The question really is whether one is a wise steward of the environment, of which we are all a part. The issue is where does the balance in the "compromise" fall. Eco-fascism purports to raise the "benefits" to the environment above the reasonable needs of people, usually to the profit of somebody else. If you were a paint manufacturer, wouldn't a law outlawing oil based paint, which is more costly to produce and which lasts much longer than latex coatings, be to your benefit? Is latex paint really so much more to the environment's benefit that we all should pay more and paint more often? When the overall cost to benefits analysis is done, a lot of the "green" starts turning brown.

[Ian McColgin]

With as much respect as is due, I disagree with Mr Cleek in two important ways. Firstly, "eco-fascist" is an utterly meaningless term that was coined by the likes of Jame Watts and his "wise use" mob as a pejoritive but as a matter of describing policy does not even apply to the most radical eco-warrior types. And secondly, it's fine to pontificate that something somewhere could be taken too far, but that's a totally empty discussion. Environmental issues are particular - this or that septic system for x level of density or buffer strips of x meters on either side of a river before logging operations, etc.

[RFNK]

Application of the term `fascist' to any environmentalist, even those with extreme views, is ridiculous. The impact against any people of any measures aimed at environmental protection or improvement are insignificant compared to the impact against people of environment damaging measures of the past and still today. Of course I agree that sensible stewardship of our environment is the issue but I believe we should all be prepared to tolerate the costs of seeking and forcing development of better products and methods which will limit further environmental damage.

Rick

[Michael D. Storey]

I'm with Rifnik, here. Without the work of those eco-s, there would be less concern for these matters. Anyone else remember sanding that copper-based crap without a mask? 50 years ago wasn't that long, really.
It is true that some people like to shove their weight around, whether they are telling someone else what to do, or doing what perhaps they shouldn't.
It is also clear that, especially as the population increases, some enhanced regimentation (great phrase, huh?) is needed. That's why we have auto licenses, etc, why they now take drunk driving seriously.
I feel that it is time for everyone to say, 'what am I willing to give up, what behaviour am I willing to modify, so that we can improve on what we have and keep what we have working right to continue to chug along.
Here in the East, there have been huge strides in the improvement of treatment of wastes, improvement of efficiencies, so that the Chesapeake (remove your hat when you use that word, Son) can survive. However, the increase in numbers using it and its watershed have resulted in no significant improvement in the quality of the Bay.
Time to get in line with has to be done, and to stop comparing ourselves to any other group of peeps; time to end name calling.
I suggest everyone here come up with three things that they could do to reduce their footprint.
Let's hear 'em.

[Scott Rosen]

Cleek is the best troll. And I agree with him. Stewardship is the best approach. Environmental rules have serious economic consequences. The eco-fascists, as Cleek calls them (I would use a different descriptor), seem not to understand or to care. Humans have an environmental impact. The only sure way to reduce your footprint to the point of no impact would be to starve yourself to death, starting right now, and use your remaining time to dig your own grave (by hand, not machine) and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

[Breakaway]

You know the difference between and environmentalist and a developer? A developer wants to build a house on the beach; An environmentalist already has one.

Seriously, there is merit in looking at the total carbon footprint. Ethanol was mentioned, and its a good example of a "green" shell game. With all of these issues, it seems the majority of folks on either side of the issue only focus on the point source of the ( real or imagined) environmental detriment.

Kevin

[Phil Y]

Bob's suggestion, absent the name calling, seems to be that Wooden Boat provide a forum to share and thus save knowledge of traditional ways to build and maintain wooden boats. If you ignore the Bilge, thats pretty much what this forum is.

[Scott Rosen]

Coming back to Bob's original post, it's not only traditional wooden boats that are threatened. The entire pleasure boating industry is dying a pretty rapid death. There is precious little waterfront property that is devoted to pleasure boats. The number of marinas in this part of the country is getting smaller as marina owners sell out to developers. The highest and best use of waterfront property is NOT boating. In Connecticut, the environmental laws are adding heavy costs to the marinas, as they have to comply with stricter rules on boat washing, bilge pumping, disposal of solid waste, painting, etc. Environmental laws are not the only reason for the loss of access for boaters. But it's a significant contributor.

Every time a boatyard or marina is closed, it is lost forever. It would be virtually impossible to start a new boatyard or marina from scratch, as the costs of the real estate, permitting, impact studies, and environmental compliance are prohibitive. Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to get financing for a start-up marina. Our access to the water for our boats is becoming more and more difficult. People aren't going to build, restore and own boats that they can't use. The pleasure boats of the future may very well be the Kayak and the jetski, relatively inexpensive to own and maintain, which you can carry on your car and launch from just about anywhere.

The WB community needs a lot more than just a voice (although a voice is a good place to start). We need to find common ground with the rest of the pleasure boat industry and find a way to create a political lobby with some power. However, WB Magazine should stay out of politics. It can do much more good by keeping its current focus which nurtures a love of wooden boats, traditional or not.

Bob - Epoxy and plywood are not our biggest threat.

[Brian Palmer]

If you are going to advocate for an issue with the government or private businesses (e.g., marinas), you need to do more than rant on-line against "eco-fascists" and post exaggerations lacking in facts and subscribe to half-baked conspiracy theories about shadowy corporate interests.

1. Identify an issue of concern.

2. Learn the facts.

3. Stick to the facts; don't exaggerate, don't make stuff up, don't get personal.

4. Identify the decision makers and establish lines of communication.

5. Identify alternatives that suit your needs and, hopefully, address the concerns of the government or private business (e.g., marina).

6. Submit the alternative to the decision maker in a clear, well written manner, with an explanation and demonstration of how the government or private business's concerns and objectives are still met.

The low-VOC coatings are a perfect example. If regulators don't hear from users that the low-VOC coatings don't work for marine applications, then they won't raise the limits, or create exemptions for either small containers or marine applications for "pleasure craft."

There are plenty of marine trade associations (e.g., NMMA, AMI), but they are not going to advocate for owners or builders of wooden boats and yachts unless their members bring specific issues to them. However, they are also a good source of information for non-members and the public on federal and state issues.

Brian

[Hugh Conway]

The low-VOC coatings are a perfect example. If regulators don't hear from users that the low-VOC coatings don't work for marine applications, then they won't raise the limits, or create exemptions for either small containers or marine applications for "pleasure craft."

Given the recent asinine crackdowns on copper bottom paints for exactly that segment of users it's safe to say regulators don't care about the voices of pleasure boaters who aren't stupendously wealthy (because of the >75' exemption).

The problems boating. Marinas are filled with boats that never move; people who would regularly boat either can't afford a boat because of the squeezed economy or because there's no actual space to keep a boat because, as said, marinas are filled with boats that never move. There's certainly some barriers for environmental compliance but the main one is people. People now, particularly those with money, are believers in the outsource everything I don't need to know **** philosophy. Unless you've lots of money there's no way to apply that philosophy to a boat.

So, stick to inspiration and being a voice for the few that care W/B, you've done wonderful so far

[Bob Cleek]

Cleek is the best troll. And I agree with him. Stewardship is the best approach. Environmental rules have serious economic consequences. The eco-fascists, as Cleek calls them (I would use a different descriptor), seem not to understand or to care. Humans have an environmental impact. The only sure way to reduce your footprint to the point of no impact would be to starve yourself to death, starting right now, and use your remaining time to dig your own grave (by hand, not machine) and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

God... how'ya doin' Scott? Haven't heard from you in a while and talk about toxic waste.... dredging this up from the muck of over a year ago.

Yea, I don't care what people want to call them, there is indeed a segment of the body politic, generally located low in the alimentary canal, that have pimped the environment for their own profit and it's our "girls" that they are turning out. Over the last year, it's gotten to the point around here in LaLa Land that we can't even buy oil based paint of any kind (or Penetrol) because of the VOC, but you can still buy all the oil based paint you want in the hardware stores if it comes in a aerosol spray can! Good luck finding things like Japan drier, xylene and the like... oh, yea, but Orchard Supply here in town carries five gallon drums of acetone. (Mmmmm... I wonder who'd need to buy five gallons of acetone at a time from a neighborhood hardware store. Can you spell "methamphetamine?")

I'm still opting for common sense, but getting no respect.

Right you are about the death of pleasure boating. There's still money in building marinas because they can keep jacking the prices up and the condos on shore want boats in their views. Good luck finding a boatyard, though!

Right you are that plywood and epoxy aren't the biggest threats to our way of life. I'm sure the Goo-geon Brothers find they can't sell epoxy, they'll jump on board too. Truth be told, if the trend in this forum's posts is any indication, without epoxy there darn near wouldn't be any "wooden" boats being built today at all!

Can it just be that it's just all over and nothing lasts forever?

[erster]

Truth be told, if the trend in this forum's posts is any indication, without epoxy there darn near wouldn't be any "wooden" boats being built today at all!

WOW, Boy thats a bigun! But for the most part epoxy is being used because of what is being described here many times, the lack of access to the water and the real biggy fewer boatyards to fix them or money for owners to fund the additinoal expenses required to maintain them. Lets not even talk about the lack of boat slips across this country either to meet the requirements for a planker.


So you have your choice. By the way I just finished a tiny piss pot by comparison, mixing some alternative sealants with great success and spend as much time if not more on the water than probably any other active member here. So there is merit in even mixing methods if not solely going the epoxy route to create a usuable boat, not one that you are constantly plugging a bunch of gaps and pump the dang thing constantly, while sleeping with one hand hanging off the bunks too in the middle of the night.

However, WB Magazine should stay out of politics

Too late, they have an entire section here on the forum dedicated to politics. Good to see you Scott still kicking around sir.

[Ian McColgin]

WoodenBoat Magazine is already a voice. Articles on wood technology also get to issues of forest use and management. We also see articles about the relationships developing between environmentally responsible builders and the fair trade sustainable yield foresters. And the heritage of John Gardiner continues with good articles on materials, glues and coatings and such.

[gilberj]

One of my justifications for favouring wooden boats is that they will largely rejoin the environment when finished. None of the other usual materials will do that. There are a few hi-tech goos which will be left over. Anti-fouling.... Some years ago there was a whack at TBT tri-butyl-tin paints...A sales man came to me promising a clean bottom after 4 years of continuous use. It was soon outlawed.
POO...High concentrations should be strenuously avoided. the real issue is the pharma, in the poo of the wealthy old white guys getting into the water....cities and towns are far worse but it is a concern...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

One of the problems with this debate is the number of 'special interests' involved. You have wooden boat owners, sailors, powerboaters, fishermen, hunters, the charter business, the insurance companies, the environmental agencies, both private and public, all the various boatbuilding factions, the marinas, etc etc etc. This is a big business, with a lot of players. The wooden boat part of boating is already an elitist type of ownership, despite the advances of epoxy/wood fabrications etc. Go down to your local marina(s) and look around..... How many wooden boats do you see? Not many. The death of the wooden boat happened more than 40 years ago. What is left is the fanatics, the enthusiasts, the dreamers, and the nostalgic. The whole of those groups don't make up a large percentage. I guarantee that this forum is the largest collection of wooden boat people out there, and there are only 34,000 listed here.... and I would guess that a third are not active, ten percent are here for a lot of other reasons than wooden boats, and so on.

Generally, people come up with the idea that a support group should be formed to support what they are interested in, not because it is necessarily worthy of support, needs supports, or would benefit somehow from that support. This is recreational boating. The market will decide what happens, and if you look at the last 60 years, it has.

Wooden boats as an environmental statement? First of all, woodenboats are not for the unskilled, or the poor. Second, a lot of the suitable woods for wooden boats are in decline. We know that, and the turnaround is unlikely. We are the few supporters of a hobby that is not likely to garner an intense rise in membership. Hey, I love wooden boats, I have been around them my whole life, I have the skills, at least part of the money required, all of the tools, and every spring there is a period of time where you could buy any one of the &#$%*) @!#$%^ +)^: |}+#!@ from me really cheap.

The one complaint I have with Woodenboat magazine? At least 25% of the magazine is devoted to a pay grade that I will never even be close to achieving.... and not many people I even know could achieve the pay required to build, restore, or even maintain the boats on these pages. I don't blame them for publishing this stuff, but it definitely the lifestyle of the very rich and privileged... talk about a small percentage!

Ah well, that's my monday night rant. I have basically decided that Vanora will not see the water this year either, given the amount of restoration I took on last year, and what is still left to be done. There's always next year, and our little sailboat Dove will give us some time on the water. Wooden boats... a labour of love they say.... but sometimes just a g'ded labour.

[Bob Cleek]

One of the problems with this debate is the number of 'special interests' involved. You have wooden boat owners, sailors, powerboaters, fishermen, hunters, the charter business, the insurance companies, the environmental agencies, both private and public, all the various boatbuilding factions, the marinas, etc etc etc. This is a big business, with a lot of players. The wooden boat part of boating is already an elitist type of ownership, despite the advances of epoxy/wood fabrications etc. Go down to your local marina(s) and look around..... How many wooden boats do you see? Not many. The death of the wooden boat happened more than 40 years ago. What is left is the fanatics, the enthusiasts, the dreamers, and the nostalgic. The whole of those groups don't make up a large percentage. I guarantee that this forum is the largest collection of wooden boat people out there, and there are only 34,000 listed here.... and I would guess that a third are not active, ten percent are here for a lot of other reasons than wooden boats, and so on.

Generally, people come up with the idea that a support group should be formed to support what they are interested in, not because it is necessarily worthy of support, needs supports, or would benefit somehow from that support. This is recreational boating. The market will decide what happens, and if you look at the last 60 years, it has.

Wooden boats as an environmental statement? First of all, woodenboats are not for the unskilled, or the poor. Second, a lot of the suitable woods for wooden boats are in decline. We know that, and the turnaround is unlikely. We are the few supporters of a hobby that is not likely to garner an intense rise in membership. Hey, I love wooden boats, I have been around them my whole life, I have the skills, at least part of the money required, all of the tools, and every spring there is a period of time where you could buy any one of the &#$%*) @!#$%^ +)^: |}+#!@ from me really cheap.

The one complaint I have with Woodenboat magazine? At least 25% of the magazine is devoted to a pay grade that I will never even be close to achieving.... and not many people I even know could achieve the pay required to build, restore, or even maintain the boats on these pages. I don't blame them for publishing this stuff, but it definitely the lifestyle of the very rich and privileged... talk about a small percentage!

Ah well, that's my monday night rant. I have basically decided that Vanora will not see the water this year either, given the amount of restoration I took on last year, and what is still left to be done. There's always next year, and our little sailboat Dove will give us some time on the water. Wooden boats... a labour of love they say.... but sometimes just a g'ded labour.

+10... Truer words were never spoken. I agree completely!

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

One further thing to add to the environmental part of the boating issue: Government puts environmental standards in place on people, because it's a helluva lot harder to put them on large companies. Large companies push back. Individuals rarely get organized well enough to object to more rules and standards put on them, but if you think that old two stroke outboards presented more of an evironmental threat than humungous commercial cargo ships, well, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Howard Sharp]

Not sure anybody wants to hear my opinion on this, but I'm a big supporter of the EPA, who do an impossible job (overwhelmed with superfund sites, for example) in an incredibly hostile environment, with minimal resources. I'm a bit puzzled by Bob's complaints about oil paint. We can't buy it in a hardware store here (NY) either, but we can buy it online, and even buy it off the shelf at a local marina. I think the issue with all of these laws is that nothing hard ever gets done without legislation. (Remember seatbelts, lead in gasoline, burning rivers, and yes, harbors with water too toxic for teredos). Yes it's difficult to make good water based paints for marine environments, but one day I'm sure it will be done, because of the legislation. Likewise with bottom paints. As for lead, don't get me started, but if you must, that too is easily available online. And if the tiniest amount of that lead finds its way into a child's developing brain, he or she will be less intelligent, and find it harder to control impulses for the rest of their lives.

So, like others have said, I'm not sure what the desired outcome is here. In ten years' time we could all find ourselves using water based technology without any feeling that it's a poor compromise.

[Bob Cleek]

Not sure anybody wants to hear my opinion on this, but I'm a big supporter of the EPA, who do an impossible job (overwhelmed with superfund sites, for example) in an incredibly hostile environment, with minimal resources. I'm a bit puzzled by Bob's complaints about oil paint. We can't buy it in a hardware store here (NY) either, but we can buy it online, and even buy it off the shelf at a local marina. I think the issue with all of these laws is that nothing hard ever gets done without legislation. (Remember seatbelts, lead in gasoline, burning rivers, and yes, harbors with water too toxic for teredos). Yes it's difficult to make good water based paints for marine environments, but one day I'm sure it will be done, because of the legislation. Likewise with bottom paints. As for lead, don't get me started, but if you must, that too is easily available online. And if the tiniest amount of that lead finds its way into a child's developing brain, he or she will be less intelligent, and find it harder to control impulses for the rest of their lives.

So, like others have said, I'm not sure what the desired outcome is here. In ten years' time we could all find ourselves using water based technology without any feeling that it's a poor compromise.

Sure, your opinion is as much worth discussing as the next guy's. I happen to agree with your assessment of the EPA. I'm no apologist for Love Canal or burning creeks, although I'd accept the trade-offs for water too toxic to support terredos! But how much better a job could the EPA do about really significant environmental hazards if they weren't distracted by all the other knick knack regulations that seem to be proliferating. Frankly, a lot of them are non-sensical. And, moreover, it isn't so much the EPA as it is the plethora of overlapping agencies and districts all trying to outdo one another with their "green-ness." Peter's dead bang on: "if you think that old two stroke outboards presented more of an evironmental threat than humungous commercial cargo ships, we'll have to agree to disagree." And that's only one example of fuzzy logic. Can you tell me why small boat owners can't buy effective biocide antifouling coatings, but the big commercial ships and the Navy can use stuff that'd curl your hair at 100 yards?

I don't follow your rationalization on oil based paint and other VOC limitations. Local air quality districts are the ones coming down on oil based coatings, which, by the way, are in the main made from vegetable oils and quite "organic." I mean, really, can somebody point me to a valid scientific report that verifies the degree of damage to the environment caused by paint drying compared to, oh, say, burning off waste gasses at the local oil refinery or landfill, not to mention vehicle emissions? Yes, you can buy it on line or at the marina with a boat on the label and a few more bucks on the price tag. Are you saying you don't care about its general unavailability because you've found a way to make an end run around the law? It doesn't sound like you really care one way or the other as long as it doesn't affect you. That's not too terribly convincing an argument.

I'm not wedded to lead pigment in paint because there are entirely adequate substitutes. From the continuing posts in here, few really have a clue about lead oxide pigment. It is not fungicidal. It will not turn you into a drooling zucchini just looking at it... you've got to eat it... a lot of it. (And it's sweet, so kids living in crappy houses with paint chipps peeling off the walls might be at risk. So because people can't keep their kids from eating paint chips, the whole world has to do without? Where are all the lead-zombies that they'd have us believe were created before lead pigments were outlawed?) (BTW... your assertion about "finding it harder to control impulses for the rest of their lives" is actually the result of some very untrue and very racist propaganda which you'd probably want to avoid repeating in the future. Just sayin'... I don't think you meant it that way.) Not so for oil based paint. Water based paint is crap. Sure, it's gotten better over the years, but it is still crap. You'll get three to five or more times the wear from oil based paint properly applied than from water based paint properly applied. Do the math. How much "greener" is the bucket of paint you have to buy three or five times than the one you only have to buy once? Now, how much do you think you are paying for that "green" paint that is half water? Worth it? Not in my book. Water based coatings are dirt cheap and have far greater profit potential than oil. Five times the cost, bought five times, five times the labor income, applied five times, and so on. It's about the chemistry. I'd love to believe they had or will have a waterbased coating that's a "good compromise," but from what the coatings scientists tell me, that's like trying to square a circle. It can't be done.

Now let's talk about bottom paint, shall we? The most effective fungicidal antifouling coatings depend upon "heavy metals" for their active ingredients. One of the very best of these is tributyl tin oxide and at the bottom of the effectiveness spectrum is copper. They've been outlawing the effective ingredients in bottom paint for a few years now and in some places they've gotten as far down the food chain as copper. "Green" bottom paints? Read the fine print. They "work" because you have to haul and apply them every six months... unless, of course, you are a commercial vessel over 75 feet, in which case you can use the good stuff. What does bottom paint do to the environment? Well, actually, beyond those critters that want to attach themselves to the bottom of your boat, damn near nothing. Yep. That's right. It ranks right up there with outlawing lead birdshot because the ducks might eat it and get lead poisoning (and not be able to control their impulses for the rest of their lives?) Now, if you have a boatyard that's scraping and sand blasting bottoms all day long, year in and year out and hosing down the deck into the drain and into the creek, and you take a core sample of the mud where their drain pipe empties, you're going to get pretty alarmed at the "heavy metals" in that sample, so you run back to the lab and write your master's thesis all about the dangers of bottom paint in marinas, but if you take a true representative sampling, things aren't so alarming at all. (The authorities claimed for years that there were all sorts of toxics in our marina, and there were. They blamed the boats until some smarter scientists came in and found, 1) the place used to be an oil storage tank farm seventy years ago and 2) the current toxic sediment came from rainwater runoff from the adjacent freeway and had nothing to do with boats.)

The environmental "footprint" of biocidal antifouling paints, measured against just about anyplace big enough to operate a boat that needs it, is infinitesimal.

It's a lot like crap... people go absolutely nuts trying to keep their poop from ending up in the water and now there's all sorts of regulations that require you carry it around with you and then dump it on shore... where it goes through the sewers to the sewage treatment plant and then right back into the water! (I'm not talking about drinking water resevoirs or houseboat marinas here, I'm talking navigable waterways.) Ever wonder where the fish and the seals and all the other animals that live in and around and over the sea crap? How much poop do you think the average recreational boater puts into the water in a year? Enough to warrant making us all spend thousands of dollars on MSD's? Who's putting diapers on the seals? Oh, yea, I forgot... except if you are the Carnival Cruise Lines' "Party on the Seas," carrying 5,000 passengers and crew, or a Nimitz Class carrier.... well then, "Let 'er rip, guys!"

The biggest truth about environmentalism is that nobody cares more about the natural environment than the people who spend the most time using it, be they farmers, hunters and fishermen, or boaters, for a few examples. It's the people who just want to sit there and look at it who screw it up for the rest of us.

[johnw]

Not sure anybody wants to hear my opinion on this, but I'm a big supporter of the EPA, who do an impossible job (overwhelmed with superfund sites, for example) in an incredibly hostile environment, with minimal resources. I'm a bit puzzled by Bob's complaints about oil paint. We can't buy it in a hardware store here (NY) either, but we can buy it online, and even buy it off the shelf at a local marina. I think the issue with all of these laws is that nothing hard ever gets done without legislation. (Remember seatbelts, lead in gasoline, burning rivers, and yes, harbors with water too toxic for teredos). Yes it's difficult to make good water based paints for marine environments, but one day I'm sure it will be done, because of the legislation. Likewise with bottom paints. As for lead, don't get me started, but if you must, that too is easily available online. And if the tiniest amount of that lead finds its way into a child's developing brain, he or she will be less intelligent, and find it harder to control impulses for the rest of their lives.

So, like others have said, I'm not sure what the desired outcome is here. In ten years' time we could all find ourselves using water based technology without any feeling that it's a poor compromise.

Well, sure, we want to hear your opinion! It's nice to hear from someone who thinks we can solve problems.

Cleek, I used to put the boat on a grid and wait for the tide to go out so I could put ablative copper-based paint on the bottom. We don't do that anymore because it turned out to be a bad idea. When I built my latest boat, I made sure I built it with wood that is grown sustainably. I didn't build it with poisons because that seemed like a bad idea.

You got a problem with that?

[RFNK]

The cost of policing reasonable exceptions is the key reason why anomalies occur within any legislative framework. It's also a bit of a stretch to argue that a certain product shouldn't be banned because there are worse or bigger problems with other products or actions. I also believe we can solve problems - and that change is rarely achieved by keeping everything convenient.

Rick