WB as a voice for the wooden boat community?

[Bob Cleek]

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?

Nothing wrong with "sustainably grown" wood. I consider all wood "sustainably grown." It's wasteful harvesting that impacts sustainability more than anything else. Neither is there any reason to "build with poisons" if there's no good reason for the poison. Beyond that, what's your point?

There are very few places in the world with any water to float a boat which do not have local and "sustainable" timber suitable for boatbuilding. We've seemed to have become overly infatuated with exotic imported wood species for no good reason. There are only a few applications which may justify the use of non-local exotics: appearances for trim accents, durability for certain applications, and so on, but generally speaking, there's a fine local wood available for just about every boatbuilding application. That said, I don't see the point of handwringing over somebody's judicious use of, say, a mahogany or teak. Sustainability for such species has nothing at all to do with prudent use in boatbuilding or any other fine finish work. What threatens the sustainability of mahogany, for instance, is clear cutting and slash burning it to clear a rain forest for agricultural use or, with teak, over-harvesting to sell off cheap to support the treasury of despotic totalitarian regimes. Unless sawn and applied to man's needs, every tree lives its life, dies, falls and rots. The amount of such wood used for boatbuilding is an exceedingly small portion of the total "harvest," most, unfortunately, of which is wasted.

So if you don't use a copper based antifouling paint on your bottom these days, what do you use? I'm all for using the least toxic alternative so long as it works, and "works" is the operative concern. More often than not, the environment seems to be only an excuse to force us to use something that doesn't work as well, but makes more money for somebody somewhere with the juice to get a law passed.

[Bob Cleek]

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

Well, yea... so long as the end justifies the means. That's the rub. A whole lot of what is being banned, or perhaps to put a finer point on it, where and how it is banned, really doesn't create a problem that at all justifies the ban. Too often, it's "feel good politics" that drives the decision making, not any rational balancing of the benefits versus the costs. In this regard, the whole ethanol fuel scam is a prime example. The government subsidizes growing corn to produce ethanol to be added to gasoline to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is a good thing, but it takes much more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol, or so say the experts, so what's the point of subsidizing the growing of corn? We end up wasting fossil fuel to reduce using it. (Maybe this thinking was brought to us by the same politicians who came up with the idea of bombing Vietnamese villages to liberate them.) I strongly suspect that if the same research was done on how much total "greenhouse gas" was created by the manufacture of enough water based paint to keep a house in good paint for twenty-five years, compared to how much total "greenhouse gas" was created by painting the same house for the same time with oil based paint, keeping that house painted with water based paint would have a bigger "carbon footprint." What I am saying is, don't restrict materials out of a false sense of environmentalism, only to consume and pollute more by the end of the day. The whole thing needs more science and less politics in the equation.

[Brian Palmer]

Well, yea... so long as the end justifies the means. That's the rub. A whole lot of what is being banned, or perhaps to put a finer point on it, where and how it is banned, really doesn't create a problem that at all justifies the ban. Too often, it's "feel good politics" that drives the decision making, not any rational balancing of the benefits versus the costs. In this regard, the whole ethanol fuel scam is a prime example. The government subsidizes growing corn to produce ethanol to be added to gasoline to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is a good thing, but it takes much more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol, or so say the experts, so what's the point of subsidizing the growing of corn? We end up wasting fossil fuel to reduce using it.

Sorry for the side track, but actually the addition of ethanol to fuel was originally to increase the oxygen content of the fuel and to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and NOx emissions; CO is bad all by itself, NOx is an ozone precursor, and ozone is a real problem. (Remember when you were a kid and you ran around during the summer until your lungs hurt? That was probably because of ozone damage to your lungs.) The addition of ethanol as a reason to "reduce fossil fuel use" instead of to reduce CO and NOx only came into favor in the 2000s when gas prices were really high post-Katrina and farm state senators were able to get subsidies for growing corn for ethanol production. It was politically more palatable than increasing fuel economy standards. The downside was an increase in food prices.

Brian

[Howard Sharp]

Bob, you have way more energy than I have. I'll just try and answer a couple of things.

The thing about pooping seals is that there aren't that many of them. I remember thinking to myself that if all the seals off the New England coast were human, they could live in one Manhattan apartment complex. There are a lot more of us humans. Seals don't need diapers, we do.
Effluent from recreational boats continues to make a difference, despite all the laws. I know of one small Maine estuary where they have to close the shellfish flats only when the boats are in the water. Come the end of the season, when the boats are out of the water, the shellfish are safe to eat again. And the laws are written with nuance - go two miles offshore and you may poop in the water to your heart's content.

As for oil based paint, I'm not making "an end run around the law". When they ban it for boat use, I'll happily go along with that. In the meantime I imagine the calculus has been made that banning oil-based house paints has made a sufficient reduction in VOC emissions. Again, it's numbers. Houses are bigger than boats, and there are a lot more of them. And wooden boats which use oil-based paints are are an even smaller proportion of the boat population. Enjoy it while you can. After that you could try one of the Swedish linseed oil based paints, which have amazing longevity, I'm told, no solvents, and soap and water cleanup. If it's of any interest, I'm finding that the high quality latex paints on my house exterior last as long as the oil paints on my boat. The oil paints resist scuffs better, and look better, but water based paints are becoming a real contender. That's the story that WoodenBoat will be reporting on before too long. In the meantime I don't buy paint from some faceless corporate behemoth, but a small traditional family owned company, which I'm sure has minimal lobbying power.

The lead studies come from doctor Herbert Needleman, University of Pittsburg, whose original research in the 70's led directly to the ban on lead in gasoline. His later studies correlated delinquency in teenagers with lead levels in bone. These results have been observed in populations around the world. In fact many believe that the recent drop in USA crime levels is a direct result of banning lead in gasoline. If that's true we can expect top see a major drop in Mexican drug violence over the next ten years.

When I was growing up in southwest England during the 50s and 60s the two stroke Seagull engine was synonymous with the sounds and smells of boating, and I always wanted to own one. Now I can afford to buy any old Seagull that comes up on ebay, but personally the idea of pouring oil-laced exhaust into the water turns my stomach - I just couldn't do it, and I wouldn't want to be part of any organization that would promote two strokes as a youcantakemySeagullfrommycolddeadhands kind of virtue. But at least in the North East the law doesn't say you can't use a Seagull - go right ahead.

As for bottom paint, I'm not really qualified because I don't use it - my boat's on a trailer. But I do know that navy boats spend up to a year away from base and need their speed at all times. Your boat spends most of its life in a closed environment, and together with all the other recreational boats poses a greater threat to domestic waters than the navy.
One day I hope to keep my boat in the water for the season, and I'll report back. If we want to preserve tradition we can go back to careening twice a year! There's another WoodenBoat story.

[Hugh Conway]

As for oil based paint, I'm not making "an end run around the law". When they ban it for boat use, I'll happily go along with that. In the meantime I imagine the calculus has been made that banning oil-based house paints has made a sufficient reduction in VOC emissions. Again, it's numbers.

Going on a slight tangent: the problem is that one of the larger source of pollution in California is China. By one study - 29%
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...made-in-china/
So all of the restrictions in California now shift activities to markets with less controls (like China) and the pollution ends up in California anyways!

The VOC crap is stupid, I can buy a quart of paint, but not a gallon. I can buy Cuprinol from the Tack Shop but not the hardware store. I can buy Turpentine in a Quart, but not a Gallon (and you have to get Turps now because the low VOC thinners/spirits they sell are completely worthless for any purpose!) /rant

[Breakaway]

The thing about pooping seals is that there aren't that many of them. I remember thinking to myself that if all the seals off the New England coast were human, they could live in one Manhattan apartment complex. There are a lot more of us humans. Seals don't need diapers, we do.

True about the seals, but don't forget the fish, crabs, birds, muskrat, deer, raccoon, .... they'd all be candidates for Pampers too!

Kevin

[Bob Cleek]

The thing about pooping seals is that there aren't that many of them. I remember thinking to myself that if all the seals off the New England coast were human, they could live in one Manhattan apartment complex. There are a lot more of us humans. Seals don't need diapers, we do.

Well, if you are feeling deprived, come and get 'em!







"Friends" my ass! A brand new marina in San Francisco, totally destroyed as soon as it was opened. (They're "protected," don'tcha know.) Millions of dollars in losses and a major recreational boating facility gone.


I love seals. (Here, sea lions, actually.) They are beautiful magnificent creatures. I don't think the boat owners below would agree with me, though.



The sea lions pile on the boats and have actually sunk them!





Watch 'em on the webcam, if you guys back East need a seal fix! http://www.pier39.com/home/the-sea-l...a-lion-webcam/

[Ian McColgin]

Sometimes we don't think. Human impacts are likely at least part of some local seal overpopulations. Other human impacts are needed to adjust. The problem is that the "obvious" solution is often not the correct solution. At least on the Cape, where we have a growing local issue, about the only thing that's sure is that culling the seal mobs will off-set things even worse.

[Bob Cleek]

Sometimes we don't think. Human impacts are likely at least part of some local seal overpopulations. Other human impacts are needed to adjust. The problem is that the "obvious" solution is often not the correct solution. At least on the Cape, where we have a growing local issue, about the only thing that's sure is that culling the seal mobs will off-set things even worse.

We've got it even worse. The thousands of sea lions hang out at the mouths of our coastal creeks (the ones pictured hunt the Golden Gate) and prey on what remaining endangered natural salmon runs we still have. If we had more orcas and great whites, maybe things would be in better balance.

[johnw]

Nothing wrong with "sustainably grown" wood. I consider all wood "sustainably grown." It's wasteful harvesting that impacts sustainability more than anything else. Neither is there any reason to "build with poisons" if there's no good reason for the poison. Beyond that, what's your point?

There are very few places in the world with any water to float a boat which do not have local and "sustainable" timber suitable for boatbuilding. We've seemed to have become overly infatuated with exotic imported wood species for no good reason. There are only a few applications which may justify the use of non-local exotics: appearances for trim accents, durability for certain applications, and so on, but generally speaking, there's a fine local wood available for just about every boatbuilding application. That said, I don't see the point of handwringing over somebody's judicious use of, say, a mahogany or teak. Sustainability for such species has nothing at all to do with prudent use in boatbuilding or any other fine finish work. What threatens the sustainability of mahogany, for instance, is clear cutting and slash burning it to clear a rain forest for agricultural use or, with teak, over-harvesting to sell off cheap to support the treasury of despotic totalitarian regimes. Unless sawn and applied to man's needs, every tree lives its life, dies, falls and rots. The amount of such wood used for boatbuilding is an exceedingly small portion of the total "harvest," most, unfortunately, of which is wasted.

So if you don't use a copper based antifouling paint on your bottom these days, what do you use? I'm all for using the least toxic alternative so long as it works, and "works" is the operative concern. More often than not, the environment seems to be only an excuse to force us to use something that doesn't work as well, but makes more money for somebody somewhere with the juice to get a law passed.

I don't use copper bottom paint? That's news to me, and certainly not what I said.

When we were painting on a grid, the tide always came in before the paint was dry, causing solvents to go into the water. When we were using ablative paint, it was designed to slough off its poison.

As for sustainability, that's all about bad harvesting policies, isn't it? If you want to support those activities, you can, but I'm not going to.

[Howard Sharp]

"Friends" my ass! A brand new marina in San Francisco, totally destroyed as soon as it was opened. (They're "protected," don'tcha know.) Millions of dollars in losses and a major recreational boating facility gone.

Seems to me they need their own condominium complex, with a pool and suchlike. When a seal visits New York harbor, it's usually on the front page of the Times metropolitan section.