I agree that we should be using coatings that do the least harm to the enviroment as possible. However, as a boatowner o na (at the moment) VERY limitted budget, paying $25-35.oo per quart of copper bottom paint is a lot easier to afford than the $100.00 per quart non-copper paints!
Until the paint manufacturers can sell enviromentally safe paints at an affordable price, I want to continue to use what I've used all my life...... copper-based hard or ablative paints (I presently use a hard paint due to finances, but then again...how "safe" is a paint that wears away "like a bar of soap" as ablatives are said to?).

On hte subject of banning zinc anodes, if we eliminate the zincs, we may have more damage from electrolosis. That means more potential for Bronze being "eaten" away......what is Bronze..... COPPER and TIN! So, let's see, we banned copper and tin use in bottom paints, yet it is OK to have those 2 metals being dissolved into the water column by electrolosis?? What am I missing?
Aluminum anodes are not without "dangers" even if they were effective at protecting other metals in saltwater. Haven't we been told that aluminum causes alzhiemers (sp?)?

I used Sea Hawk's smart solution on all of my underwater metal last year...because it is completely metal-free. It has worked really well...sounds like I will be putting it on the entire hull very soon! At least there is a solution to a no copper/metal paint. I think that the EPA knows that, otherwise how could they pass the bill?

The die has been cast. Other States will follow. Whatever is good for the environment is good for our industry. Seahawk Smart Solution, an Econea based paint, totally metal free, performs exceptionally well here in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic region. We all need to get on board now to ease the transitional period.

Actually the best antifouling is copper sheets attached to the bottom up to the waterline. Problem is its expensive but has to be done one once. It may need periodical repairs and is better on wood boats. Fastening it to fiberglass will be difficult. I can't wait until the idiots ban that as well. I am now going to buy 10yrs supply of paint to avoid these bans. The same thing happened with TBT as lots of boaters purchased that material ahead of the ban. They can't enforce use of existing product and the possibility of purchasing paint in other states will proceed.

As a former antifouling paint salesman, yacht painter and active boater, I've been directly and indirectly involved with bottom coatings for about 35 years. First it was tar and arsenic (which didn't do much against marine growth - but a lot to the guys putting it on). TBTF (tin), which was determined to affect oyster shell growth and now copper that the government is regulating against. Unfortunately, you can take all of the recreational boats in WA OR and CA under 65 feet- Remove the copper paint and repaint them with anything else and it would have virtually zero affect on the amount of suspended copper in the water column. The highest single source of copper in Puget Sound comes from automobile and truck brake dust and industrial pollution that washes down the drains and rivers and dumped into the Sound. Copper in AF paint is leeched into salt and fresh water through dissolution of the paint matrix and eventually reduced to microscopic particulates in the water column. Some of these particulates sink to the bottom and others are further reduced in size through oxidization. The second highest source of copper particulates suspended in the water column; comes from commercial shipping. Ocean going ships use co-polymer, self-polishing ablative coatings which shed paint solids and copper particulates as the ship is moving. Yachts use these same type of coatings which are very popular in the recreational boating market.

To legislate against the use of copper based AF's by yachts under 65
feet in WA State is going to have about the same effect on the amount of suspended copper in Puget Sound, as one flea on a heard of elephants. The reasoning for making such a move, I suspect is more political than environmental. I highly support environmentally responsible products in the marine industry and I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts of the marine paint companies to develop new technology. If you're wondering what is happening to the recreational marine business in the US and reasons why new people are not becoming boaters, you can add this to the list. If the State government really wants to do something about suspended copper in the Sound, I suggest they identify the real sources and work towards a solution instead of putting more pressure on the families that use Puget Sound for they're recreational boating with little time and hard earned dollars. Unfortunately this group of people do not have hired lobbyists to sell they're interests to our government so they get the squeeze.
I welcome any comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
- Jack Spriggs Anacortes, WA

maybe this will stimulate further exploration of anti foulants. Maybe its only the beginning of a boating catastrophe.

Several years ago the "newest and best" enzyme anti foulant came out and it was a total disaster. Barnacles and sea life loved it and flourished in only 6 weeks. Cost $4000 to $8000 to fix each boat. Inflatables could not be fixed.

The most likely scenario is that dry storage will empty big public marinas if the stuff doesn't work. Prognosis: big bond failures by public agencies funding marinas. More bail out taxes.

Unfortunately the scientific research on copper paints is questionable at best. History shows no significant problems in ports hosting vessels with copper bottom for over 400 years. The salmon still go up the Thames.