1. I don't care what kind of bottom paint I use if it will match or exceed my current paint experience.
Really? Paint experience is your only criterion? Nothing else matters except that your paint works well at a price you consider reasonable?
2. Current tests on non-copper paint products give 1/2 to 2/3 life compared to copper (less to my personal history) and most require prepping which usually entails stripping.
I just don't believe this is true. Some citation would be nice. Also, I don't know about "most", but there are only a few products out there. The only one I've tried will allow you to paint right over copper or anything really.
3. The cost to me personally to swap given experience to date on non-copper paint is about $2500 up-front cost and $160+ / month ongoing.
Based on what? Those numbers seem unbelievably high. That would suggest that you were currently budgeting well about $2000 per year for antifouling paint. What up-front costs are involved? Unless you are thinking that you have to strip (which you don't).
A. I believe there is an institutional bias vs. the recreational boater;
So what if there is? At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with the fact that copper-based paints leech copper into the water. Is this regulation unfair, and ultimately less effective for it? Of course it is. But that doesn't negate the fact that it is still a good idea. A small step perhaps, but a positive one. My car is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to massive corporate polluters, yet this doesn't give me the moral right to ignore emissions standards. Limiting harmful emissions, even by my little car, is still a good idea.
B. I am suspicious of the sampling validity based upon observation.
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you are suspicious of sampling based on observation, or, based on your past observations, you are suspicious of the validity of the sampling?
C. I question the 'legislate and industry will find a solution'
Yeah, I think this is a valid concern. Businesses are in it to make money. We can't rely on them to necessarily come up with great solutions right away because that is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is to turn a profit. Ideally, if capitalism is working, these goals will be closely tied, but we know that there is frequently a disconnect. However, if we can't trust industry to come up with good solutions, and we can't trust boaters to make responsible choices on their own (as you just stated at the top of your post), then how do we tend to matters that are in the public interest without legislation?
That is, when businesses won't do what's right and consumers won't do what's right, what's left?
It's illegal to buy and sell children in this country. Why? Not because there aren't people who would buy them if there were available, and it's not because there aren't people who would sell them if they could. As a society, we've made a commitment to protect children by making this illegal. If it was legal, you better believe there would be a market.
So, why is it controversial when we want to pass legislation to protect other things in this way in the name of public interest?
Consider crack. This is illegal. We made this illegal for the sake of public interest, and we didn't even care if the industry came up with a legal alternative. As a society, we don't consider recreational drugs an unalienable right. Perhaps recreational boating falls into the same category somewhat. That is, you don't have to go boating. Our society doesn't rely on it in any way. So, why should the average non-boater (the vast majority) care if it costs you a few dollars more?
Conversely, why should you ask the average person to tolerate you leeching copper into their water so that you can save a few bucks with your hobby?
It's OK that we disagree on this, but can you at least see what I am saying?
D. I recognize we live in a congested setting and that our habits have an effect on the quality of life for others and for future generations and that some sacrifice and adjustment is needed in our activities. I do believe in a temperate and thoughtful approach to do so.
I think we can agree on this. And, we can probably agree that the legislation as it stands is probably far from ideal. My position is just that this doesn't make it wrong. It just means that we can do better.
You are correct. The definition applies to the legislative intent language, not the specific prohibition. It finds that the legislative intent is to promote the use of alternative paints, and then goes on to define those as nonbiocide:
