How much gas and oil dumped by snomos?

Even I believed 1 of these 3.

"Read my lips- no new taxes - G.W. Bush
"I did not have sex with that woman" - Bill Clinton
"I am not a crook" R.M. Nixon

Which one Steve!?

I just wish to challenge WMC's assertion that snowmo's dump the fuel on " fragile soils, rare plants, and otherwise healthy and pristine forest watershed". The majority of the unburned fuel is vapor and it mixes with the air. Most of it does not go into the snow - it ends up in my clothes and hair (according to my wife).

Fact is 2 strokes are dirtier than 4 strokes. How much? Only references I found quoting 30% unburned coming out the pipe were 10 years old. New 2 stroke technology is making advances but 4 stokes put out more vapors and less mist. I'm sure the total population of sleds in the future will get cleaner. Never clean enough to satisfy all. I've been taken to task for field stripping and tossing cigarette butts into the brush (I can't please every so body-deal with it. )

At one time it was calculated that within 10 years, NYC would be 12 feet deep in horse poop - but then the car was invented.

Sure, statistics are arguable. It it remarkably better if only 25% or 15% of gasoline goes through the exhaust? No, still it is problematic. Is it any better if it is particulates rather than on the ground?

* however there are plenty of accounts by various skiers about an oily snow pack in areas used by snowmobiles*

Should the naysayers be writing to Congress to change the law to allow two-stroke engines on or highways? We could get some powerful motors that are pretty lightweight pushing our vehicles on the highway if two-strokes were allowed. Answer is no, decades ago it was decided that two-stroke motors caused too much pollution.

Watch some snomo videos such as this- www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=246622
The video shows something much different than is just traveling by snowmachine. The use shows a lot of fuel burned in order to not travel very far. Thus more concentration of whatever the pollution is. And by the way, would the snomo-fans here like to ski tour that area, to 'share' it, where those guys are riding?

Please do a simple online search and you will find plenty of information about pollution from two-stroke engines. Again, it is one thing for two-stroke engines to be used on roads where other vehicles are used. It is quite another thing to realize where snowmobiles are being used- in areas that have no other motorized activity of any kind, in very pristine areas of the Forest.

yes, that figure seems rather high.  Of course,  the 'dumping' does not manifest as a puddle under the sled, but rather is dispersed as vapor and particulates settle upon the landscape.

As WMC's claim seems a bit shocking, a quick search finds a fair amount of reports on the subject, including one where Yellowstone NP 'found' 25% of fuel/oil is released into the environment - still a shocking amount, in my view -  if I do eventually add a sled as an approach tool I will definitely go 4 stroke (or electric ?), still with a footprint, of course.

While I would agree that many statistics are manufactured, and studies can be skewed according to ones' agenda, we do need to try to look at this honestly.  Here is one link to a page citing some of the effects (and their report sources) of sleds in the wild.

www.norbecksociety.com/gpage10.html

Hmm, 30% is shocking compared to 25%. OK, but thanks for adding to the discussion, really. Yes, using statistics is always controversial.

I read quickly the Norbeck link- good one. What is so outrageous (as others would ask)? I personally observe a lot of those impacts. That is why there are rules about where I may on the Forest drive my Jeep, my F150 4 x 4 , my Honda dirt bike. But no real management of where my snowmobile may be ridden. On the other hand I understand the thrill of pushing the throttle, the sport of riding snowmobiles. We seek management that balances these concepts.

The point is, we recognize impacts. Impacts do not need to result in complete prohibition, but impacts must be considered! What must be decided per Law is the nature of the impact, whether is is acceptable, should it be limited, how, etc.

Pointing out impacts of snowmobile riding is not asking for prohibition. Management is what is needed, similar to how ther motorized vehicles are considered and managed on the Forest. no such consideration has been done on the Wenatchee Forest for snowmobile riding.

Misread my post, Rob?  Had I been asked to guess how much fuel escapes to the environment, I might have thought up to 7 or 8%.  30 and 25 are both outrageous!  15% would still get my attention.

For the most part, I've been basing my support for sled management (not necessarily your earlier proposal) on the factors that seem to directly affect non-motorized users - noise, stink, trenched-out landscape, and the disappointment that comes from hoping (or expecting) to have a peaceful and pristine  experience but finding otherwise.

Taking the pulse of the natural environment more carefully should be added to that list.  It seems logical to me that knowing, really, the effects of significant winter motorized traffic on the landscape, and its' wildlife, is an imperative.