The name's not a 'politically correct' issue... it's a correctness issue period. If you want to get technical, amelanism is a form of hypomelanism (since hypo means reduced, and having none of something is definitely having a reduced amount), but if someone used hypo instead of amel, you can bet they'd get corrected in a heartbeat.
Aaaanyway... I never claimed the project was easy.

Just that it'd be fun, and the byproducts would be fun as well. Incidentally, if we assume for a moment that both offspring I select from the F2s carry caramel and amel genes, then we're looking at an increase in the odds of triple homozygous animals (albeit the odds for ultra motley lav diminish), an increase in the odds of double homozygous animals, and an increase in the odds of single homozygous animals. Furthermore, the odds of getting normals drops quite a bit.
The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that all I care about are the ultra lav motleys, and that anything else is garbage. (Oh, I'm pretty certain I'll not get ultra lav motleys in the F2s given the odds, but taking double homozygous and breeding them together give roughly a 50% chance of yielding about 25% triple homozygous animals. Breeding an F2 back to an F1 has about a 50% worse chance than that, but it's still within the realm of reasonable possibility.) The byproducts of the pairings will be just as fun.
Furthermore, the odds don't drop as much as you think... If both F1s carry the same gene from the father's hets, there's a 1/256 chance that that gene will pop up in combination with the ultra lav motley. There's a 1/128 chance (if I did my math right) that if both F1s were dh butter that I'd wind up with an ultra mot lav caramel, ultra mot lav butter, or ultra mot lav amel. Given that it seems that lav and caramel do not coexist (one overwrites the other, though it's unknown which), and given that ultra + amel is something different from amel... how can any of those outcomes be bad?
-Kat