Some 2004 snowmobiles actually dirtier!

[Ithaca 37]

After all the claims by the fat assed snowmobile crowd we now find out some 2004 models are actually dirtier! I say ban them all from Yellowstone!

"Citing EPA tests, the Los Angeles Times reported last week that some 2004 snowmobile models actually emit more pollution than their 2002 counterparts."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=48659

 

[Ten Bears]

Show the numbers, not some biased media dribble.

 

[Nut]

Here is another editorial from the east. Maybe there is something to the tests? I believe it is more than a regional issue.

More Media editorials

 

[JoseCuervo]

This is a great line from the editorial from Toledo..
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
While this betrayal by a political ally should give the White House convenient cover to yank the misguided snowmobile rule, the President and his appointees have pursued a pro-industry, anti-environment agenda to ridiculous lengths - though the American people should hardly be surprised.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yesterday's paper had an article where 4 former Park Chiefs at Yellowstone, guys that had been in charge under Republican and Democratic administrations, had written Bush a letter calling for a reversal.

I love the knee-jerk reaction, to dismiss this as "media dribble". Perhaps some people should spend more time reading about the issues, and less time denying there are issues.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"But, according to the Los Angeles Times, two of three 2004 models tested by the EPA failed either pollution or noise standards set for the park. Worse, the new machines emitted more hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide pollution - from 40 percent to three times more - than 2002 models previously tested.

So much for industry promises of cleaner and quieter."

This exposes the Blue Ribbon Coalition as nothing but a slimey shill for the snowmobile manufacturers. Here's a quote from the good ol' BRC!

"Cook observed, "Emissions and sound have emerged as major issues in the revision of the winter use plan in Yellowstone Park. However, impressive advances have been made in reducing these impacts through engine and fuel modifications and by the introduction of new snowmobile models. Technology can solve these issues. ..... We need to proceed this way with snowmobiles in Yellowstone and elsewhere."

http://www.off-road.com/snowmobile/landuse/2000/apr/nps/nps0400c.html

 

[cjcj]

I would say your reaction "Ithaca" is knee-jerk, after all you said "ban them all" instead of ban the "new" one`s that didn`t meet standards.

 

[JoseCuervo]

CJ,

I think the way it happened, in 2002, the BEST 4-stroke machines were measured at X. The industry said, don't ban all the machines, and by 2004, we will have machines that produce .25X (or some other major reduction).

Well, fast forward to the 2004 machines, the Gov't is saying they won;t ban the machines in JellyStone Park, and then the EPA measured them at 1.4X to 3X.

So in theory, the call to ban would be on machines that are worse than 2002 machines, which for some reason, appears to be the 2004.

 

[Michaelr]

It.......

Is there anything that other people enjoy to do that you don't bitch about?

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, Sure. Millions of things. That's kind of a stupid question, isn't it?

 

[Ten Bears]

Why not have a snowmobile emission certification station? Kinda like the ones used on cars. Everybody entering the park with a machine would have to have it tested, and pay for the test. Those that passed could get a pass, good for a month or so, and those that failed would know what they needed to fix or change. The pass could be a sticker "applied" by the tester not the machine rider. If there was an emissions test, the riders buying new machines would be more likely to buy machines that don't require modifications, and the producers would work toward the market.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, as recent developments in the U.S. prove, radical groups ignore these facts, often using junk science and misinformation to bolster their case against snowmobiling. For example, they have long claimed snowmobiles as major emission polluters, touting out of date data from now debunked testing procedures using two stroke lawn mowers running at full throttle. The fact that their argument was shot down in 2000 by findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not deterred them. The EPA confirmed that existing snowmobile emission numbers have been grossly exaggerated — by an astounding 335%! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.snowmobilebc.ca/SARA/sara.html
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The laboratory tests showed that lubrication oils affected particulate emissions of snowmobiles. Different lubrication oils were found to increase particulate matter as much as 140 percent or to decrease it as much as 65 percent compared engines using conventional fuel and mineral lubrication oil. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/solutions/fuels/
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Arctic Cat First Manufacturer to Certify 2003 and 2004 Models Under New Park Rules
Arctic Cat's Park-Certified Sleds Significantly Outperform National Park Requirements <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55432_1.html

I think the key term in your "media dribble" article is some models , not all models.
GRINNER, I don't think you could be more wrong.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hangar,

Good post, if not a bit hard to follow. I am not sure where you read that I said you had not read enough on the subject. I believe my comments were directed toward Ten, the person who was sleeping well at night, knowing the nuke plant at Hanford was being dissassembled, only to find out it was licensed for 20 more years, plus another 20 on renewal.

Your post does make some interesting comments, so I'll ask a few more questions, as you seem to be able to bring information to this topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Nice work Ten Bears. Your research, answering Elkgunner's challenge, shut everyone up. Here is your link again, plus another one. I'm posting these because they contain information pertinent to parts of this post. Both originally appeared on the Business Weekly website.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55432_1.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55434_1.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This probably the funniest comment you make, where you give Ten credit for posting links to the Arctic Cat Press Releases, and some how believe these prove anything. Press Releases are generally written by the Marketing department of a corporation, after much negotitation with the Engineering staff and the legal staff. They are designed to generate publicity for the company and the marketing efforts. They prove nothing, and should not be given much credit. This goes for PR releases from any company, not just picking on Arctic Cat.

And I agree with you, the EPA standards for 2006 to 2012 are irrelvant, as the YNP standards are going to be more stringent. Question for you, is the testing methodology that EPA is going to use the same as the methodology that YNP will use?

And then I think you have a concern that there was testing in 2002, and that the machines were either Proto-type, or other non-representative machines. I wasn't there, but I thought the Industry claims were, "See, look how we are right now, we'll be even better in 2004". Is that about how the conversations were in 2002 between YNP and the Industry?

And then I have to ask for clarification on your comments here:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, the manufacturers would not comment to Ms. Cart before her story went to press. This I believe was a mistake because it left them wide open for criticism, some justified and some nonsense. I think they needed to explain why the sleds are failing YNP stds., why they even submitted them for certification if they knew they would fail. A good faith comment at the very least is warranted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This comment by you APPEARS to acknowledge the 2004 machines ARE failing the YNP stnadards. Is that correct? If they ARE failing, then is there not a legitimate concern?

Hangar, I don't mean this to be an attack on you, just trying to get some more information, and you are the one who has obviously read the subject more.

Thanks for any more education you can give us.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hanger, Good job of research and presenting the other side of the story! That's what I really like here in SI, not the kinda mindless idiocy we get from Paul and Ten Bears and a few others.

I'll try to read it all more carefully later.

As for being in shape, I'm doing OK. That's why I don't need to ride snowmobiles and ATVs! I'd rather walk.

My initial comments are: The Arctic Cat PR can't be taken too seriously. It says five of their machines received certification. Do they have others that failed?

How about all the other manufacturers? I applaud Arctic Cat for tryin' to be a leader on this. It's certainly in their own best interests. What we really need to know is how many snowmobile models are qualified for YNP certification and how many aren't. That's the bottom line for me to judge how seriously the snowmobile manufacturers are taking this issue.

The whole thing is a huge issue to research and understand all the technicalities. I suspect all the public really cares about is if the YNP standards are reasonable and will solve the problem and whether or not 2004 models pass the certification requirements.

If you can give us some info on that I'd really appreciate it.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 08:32: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Hangar18]

Elkgunner

Yeah, it may be hard to follow in some places. I was trying to get as much info in the post while keeping it somewhat short. You know the saying about article length and the avg. crap?

To begin, these two lines set a tone:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ithaca 37:
After all the claims by the fat assed snowmobile crowd we now find out some 2004 models are actually dirtier! I say ban them all from Yellowstone!

This exposes the Blue Ribbon Coalition as nothing but a slimey shill for the snowmobile manufacturers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is classic ASS*U*ME all things reported are completely true unto themselves. As I pointed out, many things were omitted that would have dispelled confusion by people that know little or nothing about the issue. The article was designed to do just that. Well done Ms. Cart


I'll address each of your points Elkgunner. Keep in mind, any question I ask you from this point forward is sincere, and not condescending.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hangar,

Good post, if not a bit hard to follow. I am not sure where you read that I said you had not read enough on the subject. I believe my comments were directed toward Ten <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
From your first post:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I love the knee-jerk reaction, to dismiss this as "media dribble". Perhaps some people should spend more time reading about the issues, and less time denying there are issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was answering that line from you, as it was not directed at anyone in particular, but rather appeared toward anyone that may not agree that the article was complete and unbiased. In fact, the article left many things unanswered, as I pointed out. Based on the point of the article, it is really inconsequential to the issue, but rather a reflection of the initial tone of this thread.


RE: My thanks to Ten bears:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This probably the funniest comment you make, where you give Ten credit for posting links to the Arctic Cat Press Releases, and some how believe these prove anything. Press Releases are generally written by the Marketing department of a corporation, after much negotitation with the Engineering staff and the legal staff. They are designed to generate publicity for the company and the marketing efforts. They prove nothing, and should not be given much credit. This goes for PR releases from any company, not just picking on Arctic Cat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just as the information Ten Bears posted was released from the manufacturers, so is the data the article refers to when it asserts failure. All emissions testing is conducted by the manufacturers, and verified by YNP. The press releases contained hard data that will be verified by YNP. They would be shooting themselves in the foot to falsify it. This information on the methodology came to me from Ms. Cart, and I have not verified it as I did not see a need nor do I have the resources she has. I have copies of all the emails she sent me if you want to read them. I can see without knowing this why you said what you did. Does this clear it up?


Next: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I agree with you, the EPA standards for 2006 to 2012 are irrelvant, as the YNP standards are going to be more stringent. Question for you, is the testing methodology that EPA is going to use the same as the methodology that YNP will use?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As far as I know, it is the same. Both use industry standards of methodology and measure. Either way, YNP is who certifies the sleds for use in the park.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And then I think you have a concern that there was testing in 2002, and that the machines were either Proto-type, or other non-representative machines. I wasn't there, but I thought the Industry claims were, "See, look how we are right now, we'll be even better in 2004". Is that about how the conversations were in 2002 between YNP and the Industry?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is about right as far as the conversations went, according to various conservation groups that initially reacted to the LA Times article. I think it went something like "Look, we can do this, here is proof with this one mass production 2001 Arctic Cat, this prototype 2002 Polaris and these two SAE CSC machines." And YNP said "OK, we will agree to this on good faith." It is this that kept the ban from taking effect. Again, the LA Times article goes through this. The link I posted to the Montana DEQ article can answer this further.

Comment clarification:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This comment by you APPEARS to acknowledge the 2004 machines ARE failing the YNP stnadards. Is that correct? If they ARE failing, then is there not a legitimate concern?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't acknowledge it either way. The article speaks of two out of three sleds tested failing either emissions OR sound standards. I posted the emissions numbers provided to me by Ms. Cart. She did not give me the noise data. Based on simply looking at the YNP standards and her numbers as well as which set of numbers she says will be used for certification (conservative), one of three failed the CO portion of the tests. Based on her article, you can reasonably conclude one of the other two sleds failed the noise test. I'm not sure if there is reason to be concerned. If the sleds fail, they will not be certified. Simple as that. Others have passed and will be certified. All things being equal, it is the manufacturers that ultimately bear this burden.

Let me know, Elkgunner, if this leaves anything else that is unclear. I'll do my best to answer what I know, and admit when I don't. B.S. and guessing when facts can contradict gets us no where and costs us credibility.


Now for Ithaca -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My initial comments are: The Arctic Cat PR can't be taken too seriously. It says five of their machines received certification. Do they have others that failed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I partially answered this above, as to the PR issue. The Arctic Cat PR and the LA Times article are all the information that I have found. As far as I know, there was not set number of different models that were required to be certified. So, if it fails, it can't be used in the park. Pretty cut and dry. I think it is pretty clear on what needs to happen. But, I have not looked in the last 10 days to see if any more have either passed or failed. Maybe you could check on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about all the other manufacturers? I applaud Arctic Cat for tryin' to be a leader on this. It's certainly in their own best interests. What we really need to know is how many snowmobile models are qualified for YNP certification and how many aren't. That's the bottom line for me to judge how seriously the snowmobile manufacturers are taking this issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you think we NEED to know this? If only one model from the big four gets certified, why is it any different than having twelve? Of course it is good PR for and in the best financial interests of the manufacturers if they get more than one model certified, but why would it be bad if they only developed a "Yellowstone" or "GTNP" model? You have to remember that four-stroke technology in snowmobiles is relatively new, whereas it is not in motorcycles, ATVs and PWC. Again, it is pretty cut and dry. One model this year, two next year, five the next. Bottom line is they ARE working on it and are committed to it, and only those that pass requirements will be allowed in the park. Yamaha released a high performance mountain 4-stroke last year, called the RX-1. Polaris is rumored to be ready to dump a 4-stroke turbo into the same market early next year, but we'll see. Two-stroke technology is coming a long way as well, and may very well pass the YNP standards. There are tons of articles on small engine technology available if you are simply willing to look.

edit: Formatting. I need a preview button.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 11:02: Message edited by: HANGAR 18 ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hanger, I explained why we'd need that info in the next sentence--" That's the bottom line for me to judge how seriously the snowmobile manufacturers are taking this issue."

I don't have much time today to research all this stuff, but wasn't 2004 the target date for the manufacturers to show they could make clean machines?

"Ban them all!" is the way you get peoples attention and get some action.

If we said, "Well, let's just hope the manufacturers do something someday when they feel like it to make make cleaner machines.", do you think that would alarm enough to start working on it?

Do you think Jon Marvel would be getting the results he's getting if he said, "Well, we'll just continue to beg the welfare ranchers to care more about overgrazing public land and hope someday they decide to do it."?

Here's a quote from the original article, "Frustrated? Confused? We feel your pain. We have advocated a snowmobiling ban, but we haven´t dismissed the possibility that the industry might build a cleaner and quieter mousetrap. We´ve said that the threat of a ban, the possible loss of a market, can be a powerful motivator."

I like those powerful motivators! Nothing like them for getting some action!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 12:39: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Hangar18]

Whoa, didn't expect to see this topic on here. As Hunt Talk's resident sledding fanatic, I feel it is time to clear the air on this issue. We beat this one to death on SnoWest the day it came out. That'll teach me to stay away from here too long.

BTW Ithaca - I did a search on the Times website for other articles written by her. She is green, has a pen and a huge audience. She answered three emails from me so give it a shot. I'm sure she has plenty of dirt on the BRC she could share with you. Oh, another thing. I guarantee this "Fat-assed Snowmobiler" is in better physical condition on my worst day than you have ever been. Your knee-jerk reaction gave you a bloody nose this time. On this issue you are completely full of shit, and I'm going to prove it.

Elkgunner - Let me know if I've spent enough time reading on this issue. After reading this post, if you still feel it is a real issue and not some drummed up BS written to sway the public's opinion using literary omission, I will be happy to discuss it further any time any place. You too Ithaca.

Nice work Ten Bears. Your research, answering Elkgunner's challenge, shut everyone up. Here is your link again, plus another one. I'm posting these because they contain information pertinent to parts of this post. Both originally appeared on the Business Weekly website.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55432_1.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55434_1.html

This article first appeared in the LA Times Thursday 9/4, the day before it appeared in the Idaho Statesman. Because the author, Ms. Julie Cart, chose not to post any numbers, I wrote to her to get some facts and data since she decided they were not important enough to include in her article. Anyone read what the standards were that the sleds failed? Not an accidental omission I'm guessing.

First some background. Below are the EPA regulations found at this link
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/cleanrec-final.htm

The Primary Fact Sheet (PDF) is here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02037.pdf

On page 4, table 2 sets standards for snowmobile engines as follows, with HC & CO measurements in g/kW-hr, and includes 50% phase-in for 2006, 100% phase-in the following years. They are:

.HC.|.CO.|.Year
-----------------
100.|.275|.2006
100.|.275|.2007-9
.75.|.275|.2010
.75.|.200|.2012

The much more strict standards (Business Weekly) set by Yellowstone Park are:

.HC.|.CO.|.Year
-----------------
.15.|.120|.NOW

Implementation of YNP standards occur this year according to Ms. Cart.

Ms. Cart provided the numbers for the sleds described in her article. Their numbers were:
"polaris: CO 111.6 and 140.0, HC 5.4 and 10.0,
arctic cat: CO 95.8 and 115, HC 6.8 and 10,
arctic cat: CO 223.4 and 270.0 and HC 3.9 and 6.0."
She added "The smaller number is the average emissions taken over three days of testing. the second, larger number, reflects the worst-case emissions over the same period. The more conservative number is usually taken as the benchmark, although the park service has not decided which to use."

No data given on the "noise standards failure".

Note under worst-case emissions all pass the EPA stds. effective 2006 up to 2012, but that's not very relevant. In my opinion, they are not strict enough when you take into considerations rider behaviors (sitting & idling), the weather (inversions) and the fact the other ORV stds are much more strict.

Ten Bears posted a link showing that 5 models passed the emissions plus sound requirements one day after Ms. Cart's article was published. If you read the standards set by Yellowstone from the Business Weekly article, you may notice that two of the three sleds that "are dirty" actually pass YNP emissions standards if you look at their three day average. Considering the park has a speed limit of 45 MPH or less and allows no riding off trail, I think that would be appropriate measure.

Something else that was not addressed at all was the comparison between 2002 and 2004 models. No one seems to know which 2002 sleds were used for this literary comparison. Except me of course. Laboratory Testing of Snowmobile Engines Go to the Selected Links section, then go to page 11 of the linked PDF (Laboratory Testing of Snowmobile Engines) near the bottom of the paragraph. A little research goes a long way. The 2002 testing involved a mass produced Arctic Cat, a prototype Polaris not available to the general buying public, and two sleds from the SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge (CSC). This distinction is important because it is not a valid comparison when looking at mass-production items against prototypes. It bears mention because it was used to discredit three 2004 sleds.

On the other hand, the manufacturers would not comment to Ms. Cart before her story went to press. This I believe was a mistake because it left them wide open for criticism, some justified and some nonsense. I think they needed to explain why the sleds are failing YNP stds., why they even submitted them for certification if they knew they would fail. A good faith comment at the very least is warranted.

I do think Yellowstone should be continued to be enjoyed from a snowmobile. Ban them all. Please! The park strictly enforces a 45 MPH or less when posted speed limit and strictly enforces no off-trail riding with a $5000 fine. In my opinion, loud, two-stroke, modified, high-performance sleds (like mine) have no place in the park. It is for these reasons that I want the manufacturers to step up to the plate, because it is only those that ride snowmobiles in the park that stand to loose anything.

edit: Why not. For your reading pleasure The SnoWest thread

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-17-2003 00:48: Message edited by: HANGAR 18 ]</font>

 

[cjcj]

Man now that was a Spanking!

 

[Hangar18]

You gave your opinion, a WANT. That's different than a NEED. Doesn't really matter though does it since you won't be riding sleds in the park. Is this all you have to pick at? And you are advocating a BAN for these reasons? What actions would you like to see taken that haven't already been taken?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't have much time today to research all this stuff, but wasn't 2004 the target date for the manufacturers to show they could make clean machines?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Below you will find approximately 45 seconds of research.

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/09/05/build/parks/snomos.php?nnn=6

From the article: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The new plan, set to start Dec. 17, (2003) will place a daily cap on the number of snowmobiles and will allow only machines that meet “best available technology” standards based on 2002 machines produced by Arctic Cat and Polaris.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Hangar18]

Hmmm...Five more minutes of research.

Link requires registration
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-snowmobiles17sep17,1,2086029.story
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Agency to Allow Snowmobiles Exceeding Pollution Limits
The National Park Service will permit machines in Grand Teton and Yellowstone that don't meet new standards.
By Julie Cart
L.A. Times Staff Writer

September 17, 2003

National Park Service officials said Tuesday they will allow some snowmobiles this winter to exceed the pollution limits set by the Bush administration as part of the policy to permit snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.

When the park service announced it would not enforce a snowmobile ban, which was to go into effect last winter, officials said they would seek to curb pollution from the machines by setting limits for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. They also said they would test for engine noise.

On Tuesday, park service officials said they would certify the machines on the basis of two different testing methods. One gauges average emissions. The other, stricter measurement records an engine's highest emission levels.

Testing data supplied to the park service showed that some late-model snowmobiles failed to pass muster when the stricter measurement was applied. Park officials said they would not prohibit those snowmobiles, saying that it was enough that the machines met the standard based on average emissions.

By allowing snowmobiles to be certified by the less stringent measure, park officials acknowledge that it is inevitable that some snowmobiles in Yellowstone this winter will exceed the agency's emissions limits.

Yellowstone Supt. Suzanne Lewis said Tuesday that the park service had certified 10 models from two manufacturers, Arctic Cat and Polaris, even though two Polaris models failed the stricter of the two emissions tests and exceeded noise limits set by the parks.

The controversial decision to cancel the Clinton administration's snowmobile ban in Yellowstone and neighboring Grand Teton was based, in part, on assurances from manufacturers that new technology would produce models that would reduce harmful emissions and run more quietly.

Yet, only three of the 10 certified models from both manufacturers were from the 2004 model year, said Yellowstone chief planner John Sacklin. And, according to testing data released by Yellowstone, all of the new models tested significantly higher for carbon monoxide emissions than their 2002 counterparts.

One 2004 model, made by Polaris, emitted far more hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide than the same model made in 2002.

Two of Polaris' 2004 models tested louder than the parks' noise limits, but will be allowed to operate in the parks if the machines are fitted with a noise abatement device, Yellowstone officials said.

Sacklin said the decision to accept the machines was made in fairness to the manufacturers, which had already begun producing machines by the time the park began to consider which emission standards to use for certification.

"The park will use both measurements this winter, and we're asking the public to give us guidance as to which measurement we should use for the future," Sacklin said.

Industry officials question the park's testing procedures, saying that portions of the noise tests are conducted at speeds not allowed in the park, producing higher decibel results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My two previous posts contain plenty of information to point out the large pile of BULLSHIT this article contains.

 

[Ithaca 37]

OK, Hanger, I'll try to make this the last question. Can you tell us how many snowmobile models qualify for YNP certification? In all the info you've posted it seems there's a lot of beating around the bush by both sides. Here's some of what I found:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=yellowstone+snowmobile+standards+2004&btnG=Google+Search

So, it looks like we now have a few models that meet certification standards and a few more that are going to be allowed to slip by without meeting the standards. More models are bound to be tested. All that's great. Now all the anti smog crowd has to do is keep the pressure on. That's what all this is about for me. Keep the pressure on or nothing gets done.

Same thing on all other issues.

Your question: "What actions would you like to see taken that haven't already been taken?" I'd like to see the EPA/YNP certification standards strictly enforced. No exceptions for coming close.

 

[Hangar18]

Ithaca - It says in today's LA Times article 10 models from Polaris and Arctic Cat have been certified as of yesterday. Right above your last post about midway through.

I believe certain models must first be certified, then let into the park. You can't show up with a sled, ask for on the spot emissions testing, receive it, and expect to get into the park.

Ignore the EPA standards. They are too lax. And no sled will slip by the complete standards. The park is using both standards until they determine which to use, which will be decided after the Oct 11 comment period deadline passes, and before they take affect Dec 17. You also need to consider that if a certain sled model comes close, and the decision to de-certify it means a certain number of local jobs are lost, it would be wise on the part of the park to err in favor of people who need to feed their families.

In an email today, Ms. Cart brought up a point I had not considered. If you think about it, this is good from a green standpoint. If the manufacturers do not make enough sleds for certification, how will the rental places get them for people to ride? The majority of the market for this type of sled, a trail sled, provided they have enough power, is in the midwest. Who will trailer them all the way to Yellowstone? Ms. Cart think this is too narrow of a market to begin with and believes this will ultimately reduce the number of sleds in the park. I agree with her.