Fines for no permit

[Sasquatch777]

I have a question about the fine for no permit. If you get caught on an OFSC trail the fine is only 200 dollars much less then the full price of 260.It hasn't changed in over 10 years but the price of the pass has more then doubled in that time. Many sled with that in mind! In Manitoba the fine is over 400 bucks on a 125 dollar pass. Ontario fine should be at least 800 dollars in comparison.

 

So my question is why has the OFSC not lobbied for a higher fine? You want to stop riders with no permit the fine has to be much higher then the permit price or it has no teeth!

[lakejoe]

Agreed!

[Viperules700]

Why have a higher fine if you can't enforce it?

[Pembroke Stratos 285XL]

How do you know they haven't lobbied for a higher fine?

[blue er]

Two sided isn't it want the freeloaders off the system but dont want to be inconvenienced by stop checks. And who pays for increased prescense of enforcement. Volunteers can do it but my guess is they wpuld like to ride the trails they built as well

[SNOHAWK]

Could or would the increased fines pay for more enforcment?

[02Sled]

I have a question about the fine for no permit. If you get caught on an OFSC trail the fine is only 200 dollars much less then the full price of 260.It hasn't changed in over 10 years but the price of the pass has more then doubled in that time. Many sled with that in mind! In Manitoba the fine is over 400 bucks on a 125 dollar pass. Ontario fine should be at least 800 dollars in comparison.

 

So my question is why has the OFSC not lobbied for a higher fine? You want to stop riders with no permit the fine has to be much higher then the permit price or it has no teeth!

 

there was a motion at the AGM to increase the fine to I believe a minimum $400 and to take that forward to the MTO. That motion was passed.

[sledjunk]

there was a motion at the AGM to increase the fine to I believe a minimum $400 and to take that forward to the MTO. That motion was passed.Provincial

The motion was for an on trail permit sale, not the fine.  The fines come under the Provincial Offences Act.  I agree that the fine should be higher, but I suspect that getting that changed is much harder, and once the government starts to look at the sledding issue, we might see changes and fines that we do not like.  eg. graduated speeding fines.

 

I suggest we let this one lie, and instead, attack the issue through trail patrol and STOP.  The fine is $200 + the Victim Fine Surcharge of $35

[02Sled]

Two sided isn't it want the freeloaders off the system but dont want to be inconvenienced by stop checks. And who pays for increased prescense of enforcement. Volunteers can do it but my guess is they wpuld like to ride the trails they built as well

 

The trail side checks for permits doesn't require anyone to stop if the permit is displayed where it is supposed to be. When you get the permit it clearly states

 

Valid only when permanently affixed to snowmobile as instructed.

 

Per subsection 3(3) of the Trail Permit regulation. (O. Reg. 185/01) made under the M.S.V.A. A trail permit shall be affixed to the motorized snow vehicle (a) at the bottom edge of the centre of the windshield; or ( on top of and to the left of centre of the engine cowling as close as possoble to the centre of the windshield, without obscuring or being obscured by the registration number required to be displayed on the vehicle.

 

If you have the permit where it is required by law. You slow down a bit, those checking see your permit and you keep on going without stopping. If you don't and put it

behind the windshield facing straight up

on the right hand side of the cowling where it can't be seen as you approach

have it in your pocket (so you can use it for multiple sleds or loan it to your friend)

or some other stupid place

then you will likely get stopped.

[02Sled]

The motion was for an on trail permit sale, not the fine.  The fines come under the Provincial Offences Act.  I agree that the fine should be higher, but I suspect that getting that changed is much harder, and once the government starts to look at the sledding issue, we might see changes and fines that we do not like.  eg. graduated speeding fines.

 

I suggest we let this one lie, and instead, attack the issue through trail patrol and STOP.  The fine is $200 + the Victim Fine Surcharge of $35

 

I know there was one to create in essence a new trail side permit with a higher price but I thought there was one to ask the MTO to increase the fine as well. I could be mistaken.

[Panther340]

There is a little bit of hypocrisy from the original poster Sasquatch ...because just the other day Sasquatch posted this on another thread

 

 quote "The 1% is on non OFSC trails that I break/keep open or others have! I can easily go for a 100 mile ride and not see a OFSC trail (I prefer OFSC trails but). Just so you don't feel bad or do, I have used OFSC trails without a permit (there is a OFSC trail that I have to use to get to other back country trails) but I'm not buying one at 100 dollars a mile."  end of quote

 

So Sasquatch you use, it looks like 2 miles of OFSC trail ( based on  your $100 per mile) , with you older snowmachines without a permit regularily it seems. But then hypocritically want the fines enforced. And considering last year how you even threatened to chase down what you deem freeloaders , I am suprised at how easily you discount your own freeloading.

 

And before you question me , I can in all honesty state unequivicolly that I have never used OFSC trails with my snowmachines or ATV in winter.

But I have stated that if I was going fishing (in my future life of retirement)and needed trails to get to the lake I would use the trails like I and other fishermen are allowed to by the Government exceptions in the Snowmachine Bill ........and would take as an afront anyone that challenged me . SO lets keep this in perspective there are many exceptions on who can use the trails and even some like yourself Sasquatch, should be able to reasonably use a short section of trail to get to another back country trail.  Now using it blatantly for loop rides or joy rides then the full force allowed by the Snowmachine Government Bills should be used by OFSC clubs.    

[KCC]

You are right 02Sled!

 

The member resolution#2  that was carried at the AGM, was for on-trail purchase of a full-season permit, instead of  $260 it would $400.  So it will be recommended to the Minister of Transportation for approval for season 2016 and subsequent seasons.

 

 

 

[Sasquatch777]

There is a little bit of hypocrisy from the original poster Sasquatch ...because just the other day Sasquatch posted this on another thread

 

 quote "The 1% is on non OFSC trails that I break/keep open or others have! I can easily go for a 100 mile ride and not see a OFSC trail (I prefer OFSC trails but). Just so you don't feel bad or do, I have used OFSC trails without a permit (there is a OFSC trail that I have to use to get to other back country trails) but I'm not buying one at 100 dollars a mile."  end of quote

 

So Sasquatch you use, it looks like 2 miles of OFSC trail ( based on  your $100 per mile) , with you older snowmachines without a permit regularily it seems. But then hypocritically want the fines enforced. And considering last year how you even threatened to chase down what you deem freeloaders , I am suprised at how easily you discount your own freeloading.

 

And before you question me , I can in all honesty state unequivicolly that I have never used OFSC trails with my snowmachines or ATV in winter.

But I have stated that if I was going fishing (in my future life of retirement)and needed trails to get to the lake I would use the trails like I and other fishermen are allowed to by the Government exceptions in the Snowmachine Bill ........and would take as an afront anyone that challenged me . SO lets keep this in perspective there are many exceptions on who can use the trails and even some like yourself Sasquatch, should be able to reasonably use a short section of trail to get to another back country trail.  Now using it blatantly for loop rides or joy rides then the full force allowed by the Snowmachine Government Bills should be used by OFSC clubs.    

How do you know I was not fishing? How do you know I use the bit of trail regularly or if it is a once a year deal? How do you know that unlike other unpermited sledders who use the trails blatantly, I travel with the thought of not using the trail when I go fishing and find it to be a challenge to do so even if it takes me a bit out of my way? Hypocrite? Really?

 

As for chasing freeloaders get the context straight, you said that you could break the law and then duck off trail and no one could follow you and or charge you. I simply said I or a Police officer could follow you off trail. If what you said was true one could simply avoid a speeding ticket by pulling off the road. Good luck with that!

 

But I'll run this by you I think that a Val Tag System that those who do not use the trails could opt out of by signing a statement agreeing that if caught on the trail they face a minimum 2000 dollar fine and forfeiture of their sled to be sold at auction! Now you who do not use the trails would be exempt and those who freeload would be very cautious about opting out.

[Sasquatch777]

You are right 02Sled!

 

The member resolution#2  that was carried at the AGM, was for on-trail purchase of a full-season permit, instead of  $260 it would $400.  So it will be recommended to the Minister of Transportation for approval for season 2016 and subsequent seasons.

 

 

So if the fine is not raised then the fine is still the cheaper option unless you have to buy the permit on the spot.

[Big Pete]

In their August Newsletter, The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is calling for higher fines/damage awards and tougher enforcement in the Trepass To Property Act. Reading the article most of the problem lies with groups other than snowmobilers although I am not so naive as to think snowmobilers are not somewhat culpable in the problem. As a Trail Patroller for my club I welcome the efforts to put some teeth in the only peice of legislation that supports our efforts to enforce the MSVA permit requirements. Our Districct wrote a letter of support to the OFA given that a large percentage of our trail network is on private farm property. We would encourage other District to do the same.

 

This is the link to the article.

 

http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/ofa-says-it%27s-time-to-tighten-trespassing-on-farms

[sledjunk]

True, but the fine does not get you permission to use the trails.  The problem is that the ticket payment can be stretched out by pleading not guilty and waiting for a court date.

 

There is no easy solution.  Even the proposed new permit has issues.

 

As a TP member, I do not want the responsibility of carrying permits with me.  If I have 5 permits, I am carrying a value of $1300 (at $260) in permits or cash.  That means that every time I stop for lunch or fuel or whatever, I have a valuable asset to keep track of.  For our club, the exposure is even larger because it is multiplied by the number of TP members on our roster.

 

In our STOP training, we were instructed that we cannot give someone the option to either buy a permit or else be charged.  This can be construed as extortion.

[sledjunk]

 

In their August Newsletter, The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is calling for higher fines/damage awards and tougher enforcement in the Trepass To Property Act. Reading the article most of the problem lies with groups other than snowmobilers although I am not so naive as to think snowmobilers are not somewhat culpable in the problem. As a Trail Patroller for my club I welcome the efforts to put some teeth in the only peice of legislation that supports our efforts to enforce the MSVA permit requirements. Our Districct wrote a letter of support to the OFA given that a large percentage of our trail network is on private farm property. We would encourage other District to do the same.

 

This is the link to the article.

 

http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/ofa-says-it%27s-time-to-tighten-trespassing-on-farms

 

I corrected the link for you.

[Reved]

So if the fine is not raised then the fine is still the cheaper option unless you have to buy the permit on the spot.

 

IMO Why pay on the spot, go ahead and get charged. Unless it's a cop who ask for ID there is nothing that can be done. Can TP ask for your ID? If it get to court good luck IDing the person and the fine will be reduced anyway. Thats my take anyway.

[Panther340]

Well which is it Sasquatch were you fishing or were you just regularly using it ?

As for what was stated last year you have selective memory I did not state to run from “Police officers , I stated “NOT TO”  but  it was based on my missunderstanding of what Trail patrollers can do versus STOP officers ( as I understand it now OPP specially assigned)  But you can see the confusion happening out there when you read this news link. It seems to admit exactly what I was stating. But we digress you folks are in a catch 22 situation if you involve OPP and government more then speeding infractions loom and 50kmph would be the kicker. Education and customer service seems the only factors that can be changed.

This link does make it interesting about what STOP can or cannot do , but it is three years old , maybe Government added some teeth, but I doubt it.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=50533

[sledjunk]

IMO Why pay on the spot, go ahead and get charged. Unless it's a cop who ask for ID there is nothing that can be done. Can TP ask for your ID? If it get to court good luck IDing the person and the fine will be reduced anyway. Thats my take anyway.

 

The only thing that TP can do is file a trespassing charge.  They cannot demand identification, but can ask for it and record the information if it is given.  They can take photos of the registration numbers on the sled, or record the number.  Either the owner or the operator can be responsible for the charge.

The fine may be reduced, but they do have to appear in court, (local to where the offense occurred) and that likely means losing a day's pay.

 

Well which is it Sasquatch were you fishing or were you just regularly using it ?

As for what was stated last year you have selective memory I did not state to run from “Police officers , I stated “NOT TO”  but  it was based on my missunderstanding of what Trail patrollers can do versus STOP officers ( as I understand it now OPP specially assigned)  But you can see the confusion happening out there when you read this news link. It seems to admit exactly what I was stating. But we digress you folks are in a catch 22 situation if you involve OPP and government more then speeding infractions loom and 50kmph would be the kicker. Education and customer service seems the only factors that can be changed.

This link does make it interesting about what STOP can or cannot do , but it is three years old , maybe Government added some teeth, but I doubt it.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=50533

The story is correct and the facts are still current.  STOP officers cannot arrest, but they can issue a Provincial Offense Notice (ticket) for almost all offenses under the MSVA.  The only limitation of this are the few sections that are listed as "N.S.F." (No Set Fine) in the Provincial Offenses Act, Sch 64.  These include

Make false statement

Produce false evidence of insurance

Fail to stop for police officer

Drive motorized snow vehicle while license suspended

[bbakernbay]

You are right 02Sled!

 

The member resolution#2  that was carried at the AGM, was for on-trail purchase of a full-season permit, instead of  $260 it would $400.  So it will be recommended to the Minister of Transportation for approval for season 2016 and subsequent seasons.

Selling an On Trail Permit at $400 is no solution when Trail Patrollers (I am one) can't do anything except lay a Tresspass Charge if we can prove they are on private property.

Trail Patrol have no authority to make an operator show their identification or even show their face so as to identify them.

The Ontario Government has got to step up and pass legislation providing for higher fines and a much simpler system of laying a charge against the OWNER of the snowmobile.

This Enhanced Trail Patrol is not going to work, the OPP are dragging their heels.

The OFSC advised they met with OPP Assistant Superintendentin September and some progress was made.

Let's see what progress has been achieved.

The politicians need to get this done.

[sledjunk]

Selling an On Trail Permit at $400 is no solution when Trail Patrollers (I am one) can't do anything except lay a Tresspass Charge if we can prove they are on private property.

Trail Patrol have no authority to make an operator show their identification or even show their face so as to identify them.

The Ontario Government has got to step up and pass legislation providing for higher fines and a much simpler system of laying a charge against the OWNER of the snowmobile.

This Enhanced Trail Patrol is not going to work, the OPP are dragging their heels.

The OFSC advised they met with OPP Assistant Superintendentin September and some progress was made.

Let's see what progress has been achieved.

The politicians need to get this done.

You are absolutely correct!!!!

 

I find it interesting that the article that Panther340 posted with the letter from the then chair of the STOP Committee quotes almost the same numbers of officers and trainees as we were told at the AGM.  So much for moving forward

[Reved]

...Either the owner or the operator can be responsible for the charge.

The fine may be reduced, but they do have to appear in court, (local to where the offense occurred) and that likely means losing a day's pay.

 

My understanding is the TP must be able to ID the person in court. Owner can deny he was there.

[sledjunk]

By virtue of the registration number, you can verify the owner.  Now you just have to prove that the sled was on the trail and where.  A timestamped photo of the GPS screen and the sled should be pretty solid evidence

[bbakernbay]

My understanding is the TP must be able to ID the person in court. Owner can deny he was there.

And that is precisely why I am suggesting the Act be revised to indicate charge against OWNER just like ETR 407 or a Parking Ticket. Owner is responsible for lending out their sled.