Seagull remorse - does it exist?

[Niander]

Best place for a Seagull is permanently bolted to the pushpit.
Detail the fuel tank, polish the block, and put on a propellor with un-knackered blades with a new pin.

Then, get out the Torqeedo when you actually need some extra thrust, or power the tender.

Then you get a flat battery and your ****ed

 

[Twister_Ken]

Being as I've not never ever had a Seagull (feathered or metal) I can say with my normal infallibility that the damn things are as bad as the open coal fire, which went the way of the wooly mammouth due to the Clean Air Act (or was it Acts?). What's needed is a Clean Water Act, then Seagulls can end up where they are supposed to be - nailed to the walls of waterside public houses.

 

[Tranona]

There are greater, far greater issues to be addressed in our ever increasingly polluted world - and Seagulls really ain't one of 'em.

This takes me back to the days that I alluded to earlier when I worked for Seagulls and was responsible for dealing with the issue. The first bans on 2 strokes were taking place in Switzerland in the 1970s and it was clear then that the days of 2 strokes were numbered.

Did not matter that the scale of the pollution in global terms was miniscule, the point was 2 strokes were mainly used for leisure purposes so were an easy target. The real polluters of this world are those we depend on for our way of life and they are largely ignored because we are not prepared to deal with the consequences.

Just a simple example that I used in my classes on dealing with environmental issues in the 1980s. Just ask everybody in the class who would choose a catalytic converter when they were optional extras (most of classes of business people bought new cars). Answer - big fat zero. Why should they bear the cost when they would not see a direct benefit?

That is just how it is, just about nobody is prepared to take individual action unless they see a direct benfit. What makes it worse is that they will if they are bribed as in the shameful waste of resources currently being poured into such things as solar panels on private houses and windfarms on private land.

 

[Yantlet]

I am not going to join the aye's or nay's regarding the dear old Seagull's, suffice it to say I have served my time with them with no remorse. But don't dismiss two stroke technology out of hand as "Satan's Work" especially with all the advantages they hold over four strokes -weight,price, performance, no oil changes, the ability to hang upside down if necessary etc.etc.. It's just a shame the brilliant work Evinrude has done with it's Etec range has not filtered down to its smaller models - Here's hoping it does.

 

[Chrusty 1]

I am not going to join the aye's or nay's regarding the dear old Seagull's, suffice it to say I have served my time with them with no remorse. But don't dismiss two stroke technology out of hand as "Satan's Work" especially with all the advantages they hold over four strokes -weight,price, performance, no oil changes, the ability to hang upside down if necessary etc.etc.. It's just a shame the brilliant work Evinrude has done with it's Etec range has not filtered down to its smaller models - Here's hoping it does.

I think you are right, I have a little Yamaha 3.3hp 2stroke, I use it on my dink. When I bought it, it was in a bit of a state, having been neglected by it's two previous owners. The thing is, I spent a bit of money and time on it and got it looking and running really nice, a bit of careful tweaking got the mixture just right, so it doesn't leave any scum in the test tank, not that I can see anyways. That little engine is quiet, smoke free and smooth in operation, she smokes a tad on starting from cold but that soon stops.

What I am getting to is that I don't dismiss two stroke technology as "satan's work", just seagull two stroke technology, if you can call it that?

I was once told that the reason that Evinrude and others have not developed small two stroke engine technology in the same way as their big units is that apparently, (someone please correct me if I am wrong), the technology doesn't easily transpose down to the smaller sizes.

In my view, small two stroke outboard engines are much more convenient for doing jobs like powering the tender, it's just that Seagulls are noisy, smelly, oily and smokey. They are 1920s technology, the world has moved on, and there are now options available that will do the job a lot better, a lot quieter, and a lot cleaner.

 

[dylanwinter]

One more time

Did not matter that the scale of the pollution in global terms was miniscule, the point was 2 strokes were mainly used for leisure purposes so were an easy target. The real polluters of this world are those we depend on for our way of life and they are largely ignored because we are not prepared to deal with the consequences.

Just a simple example that I used in my classes on dealing with environmental issues in the 1980s. Just ask everybody in the class who would choose a catalytic converter when they were optional extras (most of classes of business people bought new cars). Answer - big fat zero. Why should they bear the cost when they would not see a direct benefit?

That is just how it is, just about nobody is prepared to take individual action unless they see a direct benfit. What makes it worse is that they will if they are bribed as in the shameful waste of resources currently being poured into such things as solar panels on private houses and windfarms on private land.

Let me try just one more time

it is not about the big picture of overall sources of pollution or catalytic converters on cars or windfarms or global warming

it is about point source pollution in very vulnerable waters

run the seagulls all you like out at sea - the oil scum will spread and probably get broken down before it reaches the salt grasses or other plants along the tidal margins and will be unlikely to damage the delicate gills of fish or crabs.

In my opinion it is not a nice thing to do in restricted areas

it is a bit like a sea toilet and being polite to your neighbours

- by all means use it at sea - not in the harbour or marina

In my opinion using a seagull in harbour/lake/river/broads really is like crapping on your own and your neighbours doorstep.

I own them but have decided not to use them.

... clearly for others what the oil does to the highly localised environment where we use our tenders and keep our boats is not an issue.

imagine though for a second what that film of oil could do to gills with their billions of tiny surface maximising tubes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Gills_(esox).jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/elberal/sscrab2.jpg

or the tiny oxygen exchange channels used by plants along the marine margin

I have learned a lot from this thread

thanks chaps

 

[yellowspinnaker]

I too have learned.

Now this sliced dolphin fat, do Lidl's have it?

And is it in the 'Luxury for everyone" or the motor accessories section?

 

[Tranona]

Let me try just one more time

it is not about the big picture of overall sources of pollution or catalytic converters on cars or windfarms or global warming

it is about point source pollution in very vulnerable waters

run the seagulls all you like out at sea - the oil scum will spread and probably get broken down before it reaches the salt grasses or other plants along the tidal margins and will be unlikely to damage the delicate gills of fish or crabs.

In my opinion it is not a nice thing to do in restricted areas

it is a bit like a sea toilet and being polite to your neighbours

- by all means use it at sea - not in the harbour or marina

In my opinion using a seagull in harbour/lake/river/broads really is like crapping on your own and your neighbours doorstep.

I own them but have decided not to use them.

... clearly for others what the oil does to the highly localised environment where we use our tenders and keep our boats is not an issue.

imagine though for a second what that film of oil could do to gills with their billions of tiny surface maximising tubes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Gills_(esox).jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/elberal/sscrab2.jpg

or the tiny oxygen exchange channels used by plants along the marine margin

I have learned a lot from this thread

thanks chaps

There is a danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. The example of catalytic converters was not about the mechanism, it was to illustrate individual decision making processes. Nor was I trying to say it was unfair to pick on 2 strokes.

While I agree with you that oil residue left on the surface looks awful and makes you feel bad, you may well find that the damage you think it inflicts does not actually happen. There was a lot of work done at the time (1970's) to show that the residues dispersed very quickly, particularly where there was any sort of flow. The recovery of environment after the major oil spills illustrate how well the sea can deal with pollution. On the other hand still waters in enclosed systems such as the Swiss lakes are not so effective at dealing with residues - but their problems are not the same as those in tidal waters.

So, by all means don't use your Seagull in places where you are offended by the visual residue. However, you ask us to "imagine" what harm it does - but imagination is very different from scientific proof that it does! There may well, of course be "proof" out there, but proof can often only appear if you are looking for it!

 

[dylanwinter]

Good point

you ask us to "imagine" what harm it does - but imagination is very different from scientific proof that it does! There may well, of course be "proof" out there, but proof can often only appear if you are looking for it!

note to self

must remember that mantra next time I feel like expressing concern about something




best not to seek proof for fear that I might find it



"There may well, of course be "proof" out there, but proof can often only appear if you are looking for it"


this is from a study on the pollution impact of two stroke jetskis

the whole report is here

http://www.nonoise.org/resource/jetskis/jsmemo.htm#WaterPollution

but here is the bit about two strokes

Water Pollution

All PWCs are powered by two-stroke engines. An article by Keith Bush appearing in Personal Watercraft Illustrated, an industry publication had this to say about them: (emphasis added)

Two-stroke engines combine intake and compression in one stroke, exhaust and power in another. Fresh air/fuel mixture enters the cylinder while the exhaust port is still open. Therefore, unburned fuel escapes with every cycle. Also, two-stroke engines require that oil be mixed with the gasoline for lubrication. These two factors combine to produce substantially higher hydrocarbon emissions.

Despite these drawbacks, two-strokes are still the obvious engines of choice for personal watercraft. One reason can be found at the bottom of a four-stroke engine, where the oil sump is located. Turn one of these motors upside down, and oil runs into places where oil has no business being. Four strokes also have a much lower tolerance for water ingestion than their two-stroke kin, as water can mix with the oil in the sump and break down its lubricating abilities, with dire consequences. As an added benefit, two-strokes are fundamentally simpler than their four stroke brothers, making them smaller, lighter and less expensive. Also, because it performs a complete combustion cycle in half as many strokes, a two-stroker doubles the power potential of a comparably sized four-stroker.

In its comments to the National Park Service (NPS) in a rule-making proceeding, the National Park and Conservation Association (NPCA) made the following representations:

(The NPS has given) a grossly inadequate treatment of the extensive scientific literature demonstrating that the two-stroke engines found in the vast majority of PWCs emit hydrocarbon pollution that can devastate marine resources. For example, studies have shown that even low levels of hydrocarbon in aquatic systems can have acute toxic effects on various forms of zooplankton, the foundation of many ecosystem food chains. This type of pollution poses a real threat to marine wildlife habitats within the National Park System. According to other studies, an average two-hour ride on a PWC emits three gallons of gas and oil into the water. In addition, PWCs emit eight times more pollution than equivalent, two-stroke outboard motorboats.

In that same proceeding, the opening statement of the NPS acknowledged that, "Studies have shown that these two-stroke (PWC) engines discharge as much as 25 percent of their gas and oil emissions directly into the water."

A "fact sheet" issued by the NCPA's Conservation Policy Dept., under date of 4 December 1997, observed that:

Pollution is another major concern associated with PWCs. The overwhelming majority of PWCs are powered by two stroke engines which are infamous for their propensity to pollute both air and water. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that between 40% and 50% of the fuel/oil mixture used by two stroke engines is emitted directly into the water and air. Polycyclic Aeromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), which result from the discharged fuel, are toxic to various forms of zooplankton, an important link in the aquatic food chain.

Data developed by the California Air Resources Board indicates that an average two-hour ride on a PWC may dump 3 gallons of gas and oil into the water.

A news release in April of 1998 by Miami University, Oxford, OH, referred to studies the previous summer at Lake Tahoe by its professor of zoology, Dr. James T. Oris. The article included the following text:

* * * emissions from motorized watercraft, including outboard engine-powered boats and personal watercraft such as jet-skis and wet bikes, killed zooplankton and stunted the growth of fish larvae in the lake. * * * The problem, Oris says, is that these emissions work together with the ultraviolet rays of the sun for a combination lethal to aquatic plants and animals. Oris has studied the phototoxity of fossil fuel products for the past15 years, but this is the first study demonstrating a link between natural levels of marine engine emissions and harm to aquatic life. A * * Much of the concern over phototoxity of engine emissions involved carburated, two-stroke engines. Because of the way carburated two-stroke engines work, up to 20 percent of the fuel passes through unburned, he said. "For every five gallons of gas pumped into these engines, up to one gallon is released into the water."

An article by Chad Nelsen published by the Surfrider Foundation in its June/July 1998 issue of "Making waves" observed that:

The primary reason that PWC are so harmful to the environment is that they are powered by two stroke engines. These internal combustion engines power either a water jet pump or fully covered propeller chamber and provide craft with enormous thrust. Unfortunately these engines pollute the water and air, are very fuel inefficient and create an extreme amount of noise, disturbing wildlife and people alike.

Two stroke engines run on a mixture of motor oil and gasoline. According to EPA statistics, two stroke engines are America's number one source of toxic water pollution. Two strokes discharge as much as one third of their fuel and oil unburned into the water and air, which means a two-hour ride on a PWC dumps 2.5 gallons of gas and oil into the water. Hydrocarbons found in gas and oil float on the surface of the water and can settle within shallow ecosystems along the shoreline, a critical habitat area. This is the same type of engine that was banned from use in motorcycles years ago because of its contribution to noise and air pollution. It has been estimated that PWC contribute the equivalent of four Exxon Valdez spills to America's waters annually!

An aide entitled "Making Waves" by Lilly Waterman in the July/August 1997 issue of National Parks Magazine contended with respect to PWCs that, "Running today's typical model for one hour releases about the same amount of smog-generating pollutants as driving a car 800 miles." The article reported that PWCs discharge up to 30% of their fuel into the water, and referred to "Michigan State University research indicating that toxicity of such discharges, made 50,000 times worse by ultraviolet light, damages ecologically essential plankton."



your mantra is a wonderful one to remember

don't look for the evidence because you might find it

 

[Tranona]

your mantra is a wonderful one to remember

don't look for the evidence because you might find it

Yes, you have found it - and guess what - it refers exclusively to still water (funny that seen that somewhere before!)

You need also to put it in perspective, one PWC engine will put out far more than a 2hp outboard, just as your article states - 8 times more than an equivalent outboard. They are talking about typically 35 hp engines used for hours at a time, not little 2hp engines used for a few minutes.

This is the danger of using data collected in one environment on the impact of one particular phenomenom and then trying to transfer it to another environment and another phenomenom.

Of course 2 strokes put out pollution, and of course the Seagull engine (particularly using 10:1) puts out more than others, but the SCALE is vastly different, as is the ability of the marine (as opposed to still water) environment's ability to deal with the pollution.

If I had the energy I could dig out all the reports that show how the marine environment deals with oil residues, but it would not "prove" your position or mine, only illustrate the complexity of the subject and the difficulty in arriving at universal solutions to complex problems.

At the end of the day you can make your own individual choice based on what you believe is right in the light of what you see, but that does not mean it is the only correct decision. Most of the decisions on such issues are not made by individuals but collectively. Sometimes they are demonstrably correct (the Clean Air Act is one example) but they are often just as flawed as our own individual decisions.

 

[Cobra]

OK Dylan, you have convinced me! I will do a trade off for the OVERALL environment.
Every time I use the Seagull Forty Plus to go over to the boat, for the next 3 days I will cycle to work leaving my gas guzzling air polluting 5 series on the driveway at home!

I am sorry mate, but I really cannot see what your big problem is with Seagulls!

The amount of 'other' non-biodegradable crud you see floating about on the tide in East Coast rivers, the small amount of (often bio-degradable) oil left by a few Seagull users is really diddly squat by comparison. If I remember, I will take the camera with me on a few calm days to record what I see and as evidence for this august forum, what the water looks like astern of the Seagull for comparison to all the other detritus!

 

[Chrusty 1]

Yes, you have found it - and guess what - it refers exclusively to still water (funny that seen that somewhere before!)

You need also to put it in perspective, one PWC engine will put out far more than a 2hp outboard, just as your article states - 8 times more than an equivalent outboard. They are talking about typically 35 hp engines used for hours at a time, not little 2hp engines used for a few minutes.

This is the danger of using data collected in one environment on the impact of one particular phenomenom and then trying to transfer it to another environment and another phenomenom.

Of course 2 strokes put out pollution, and of course the Seagull engine (particularly using 10:1) puts out more than others, but the SCALE is vastly different, as is the ability of the marine (as opposed to still water) environment's ability to deal with the pollution.

If I had the energy I could dig out all the reports that show how the marine environment deals with oil residues, but it would not "prove" your position or mine, only illustrate the complexity of the subject and the difficulty in arriving at universal solutions to complex problems.

At the end of the day you can make your own individual choice based on what you believe is right in the light of what you see, but that does not mean it is the only correct decision. Most of the decisions on such issues are not made by individuals but collectively. Sometimes they are demonstrably correct (the Clean Air Act is one example) but they are often just as flawed as our own individual decisions.

Personally I think Dylan is flogging a dead horse with his environmental argument, especially within these pages, as from what I have seen over the years, most on here couldn't give a rat's ass about the environment, as long as they can continue to play with their toys without interference. In my view, a much better argument against the use of Seagull outboard engines is that their use is just plain anti-social.

I think one of the very worst things that can spoil the peace and tranquility of a quiet mooring or anchorage, is two people in a dinghy propelled by an iron sh*tehawk. The only thing noisier than the engine is the two people shouting at each other to make themselves heard over the cacophony of the engine. Some of them should be more careful about what they are discussing as they can be heard at over half a mile! The smoke and the oil residue are also an irritation, but nothing compared to the above.

 

[Greenheart]

The Seagull's time has passed; the remainder is regrettable.

Very bizarre...I was thinking how I'd phrase my feelings on this matter, then I discovered Chrusty had already done it in the previous contribution. Every word, right down to the rat's ass.

Dylan, I'm with you entirely, but it's conspicuous that Seagull fans either don't recognise the noise nuisance and oily scum they're responsible for, or they're entirely aware of it, and just don't care. It's equivalent to flushing number twos in harbour.

I tend to shake my head slowly and disapprovingly at the drivers of cars whizzing down our residential road at over 40mph, and at the riders of those ear-bruising, fog-emitting, stinking two-stroke "classic" scooters. Classic, my ass.

I don't imagine their drivers will be gripped by remorse, but they can read my lips as I mouth insulting phrases. Their joy of road-use can't be enhanced by knowing that everyone who isn't also offending the same way, wishes they'd cease and desist. (Or decease!)

Seagull users are in the same group. Not that I get many dinghies motoring up my street...but, let it be known across the (usually friendly) boating world: when you start a Seagull, everyone in the vicinity is invariably thinking one thing..."you utter punt".

 

[Salty John]

I don't know about seagull remorse but didn't that bloke Coleridge write a very long poem about albatross remorse?

 

[dylanwinter]

evidence

Yes, you have found it - and guess what - it refers exclusively to still water (funny that seen that somewhere before!)

You need also to put it in perspective, one PWC engine will put out far more than a 2hp outboard, just as your article states - 8 times more than an equivalent outboard. They are talking about typically 35 hp engines used for hours at a time, not little 2hp engines used for a few minutes.

This is the danger of using data collected in one environment on the impact of one particular phenomenom and then trying to transfer it to another environment and another phenomenom.

Of course 2 strokes put out pollution, and of course the Seagull engine (particularly using 10:1) puts out more than others, but the SCALE is vastly different, as is the ability of the marine (as opposed to still water) environment's ability to deal with the pollution.

If I had the energy I could dig out all the reports that show how the marine environment deals with oil residues, but it would not "prove" your position or mine, only illustrate the complexity of the subject and the difficulty in arriving at universal solutions to complex problems.

At the end of the day you can make your own individual choice based on what you believe is right in the light of what you see, but that does not mean it is the only correct decision. Most of the decisions on such issues are not made by individuals but collectively. Sometimes they are demonstrably correct (the Clean Air Act is one example) but they are often just as flawed as our own individual decisions.

here we go again


- "don't criticise my seagull because he is worse than me"

which really is the level of the playground as opposed to taking some responibility for your own actions

as for the evidence you say you have but cannot be bothered to show

well that makes further discussion about it quite hard

you are, of course, quite correct that in the long term the marine environment will eventually take care of the problem for you and for me

and that is the same argument for dog mess in the street and the use of sea toilets in marinas



Cobra

- I fear you are deliberatly missing the point

cycling to work rather than driving your series 5 would be a lovely thing to do for your streets, your health and the planet in general

but will have almost no impact on the one in five gallons of oil and petrol you put into your seagull ending up in the harbour where you sail - and where other people sail

your car usage and seagull usage are unconnected - other than some tenuous global warming effect

It seems to me that hanging up the seagull is an easy win

by replacing it with a better engine you would

1/use less fuel

2/almost certainly make less noise

3/have a car boot that does not smell of petrol

4/get to keep your boat in a cleaner harbour


it seems like a no brainer to me.....

Dylan

 

[Chrusty 1]

Very bizarre...I was thinking how I'd phrase my feelings on this matter, then I discovered Chrusty had already done it in the previous contribution. Every word, right down to the rat's ass.

Dylan, I'm with you entirely, but it's conspicuous that Seagull fans either don't recognise the noise nuisance and oily scum they're responsible for, or they're entirely aware of it, and just don't care. It's equivalent to flushing number twos in harbour.

I tend to shake my head slowly and disapprovingly at the drivers of cars whizzing down our residential road at over 40mph, and at the riders of those ear-bruising, fog-emitting, stinking two-stroke "classic" scooters. Classic, my ass.

I don't imagine their drivers will be gripped by remorse, but they can read my lips as I mouth insulting phrases. Their joy of road-use can't be enhanced by knowing that everyone who isn't also offending the same way, wishes they'd cease and desist. (Or break down.)

Seagull users are in the same group. Not that I get many dinghies motoring up my street...but, let it be known across the (usually friendly) boating world: when you start a Seagull, everyone in the vicinity is invariably thinking one thing..."you utter punt".

Now listen Can Drane! This sort of thing has just got to cease and desist! Forthwith if not immediately!

You aint my alter ego is you?

My long lost brother?

My bank manager?

My sister?

 

[Blueboatman]

There should be an ASBO punitive tax on all dinghies that cannot satisfactorily be rowed.
Simples.
Bad for small o/board sales and beer guts though( and o/b thieves, I guess)

 

[Chrusty 1]

There should be an ASBO punitive tax on all dinghies that cannot satisfactorily be rowed.
Simples.
Bad for small o/board sales and beer guts though( and o/b thieves, I guess)

I must get you to give me a demonstration of dinghy rowing in the River Torridge on a spring flood!

I do take your point though, and I do row as often as I can because it's just less hassle than carting the outboard about.

 

[Greenheart]

Retire your Seagull with the honour of long service. Or everyone will hate it and you

QUOTE, from Dylan:

It seems to me that hanging up the seagull is an easy win

by replacing it with a better engine you would

1/use less fuel

2/almost certainly make less noise

3/have a car boot that does not smell of petrol

4/get to keep your boat in a cleaner harbour


Well said, Dylan.

But anyone insensitive enough to continue Seagull usage in 2012, already demonstrates an entrenched, twisted enjoyment of other people's collective disapproval and dislike, and a wilful reluctance to recognise (or act, on recognising) their own culpability.

Long may Seagulls frustrate, asphyxiate and infuriate their owners - because that's as close to 'just deserts' as these people get.

 

[Greenheart]

This sort of thing has just got to cease and desist!

Cease and desist?

That crusty-old phrase? Good grief, I'm sure I used that earlier today. Are you copying me, Chrusty?

I was only echoing your sentiment.