Elliotgroomer Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The grooming program managment study by Trail Work Consulting that was commisioned by the OFSC is available on the OFSC site under resources for those who have access. Anyone see it yet if so what are your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Saul Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Its a lot to push through in one season, but I do agree with the plan, some my not like change but we have to keep a province wide system or its over, groomer replacement is also a key in the plan, All good by our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I have removed the two duplicate threads so that comments can be kept together. As for the report, there are lots of good ideas, but we would need a boatload of money to implement it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I can only see it working if the new units are added at the same time. To reduce units with the aging fleets would not be wise as it is currently not uncommon to experience up to 30% of the existing fleet out of service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogirl69 Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 A great report. About 10 years too late tho. 100 too many groomers and too many new groomers being used in the wrong places. Its a wake up call to the Clubs in the south with new groomers with little snow (the last 2 years are an exception) need to be moved to where the snow is. Remember all the groomers are property of the OFSC and can/will be relocated as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupkids Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 A great report. About 10 years too late tho. 100 too many groomers and too many new groomers being used in the wrong places. Its a wake up call to the Clubs in the south with new groomers with little snow (the last 2 years are an exception) need to be moved to where the snow is. Remember all the groomers are property of the OFSC and can/will be relocated as needed. I'm not so sure about this. Only if a club ends up defunct does its property and equipment go back to the OFSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperules700 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 A great report. About 10 years too late tho. 100 too many groomers and too many new groomers being used in the wrong places. Its a wake up call to the Clubs in the south with new groomers with little snow (the last 2 years are an exception) need to be moved to where the snow is. Remember all the groomers are property of the OFSC and can/will be relocated as needed. The south does help the north. My area set one groomer to near Gogoma to help when there's broke. District 5 sends groomers to 9 often as well if they have snow and we don't. Some of the groomers in the south see 1000 hrs per year, per unit. There are allot of riders and lots of trails to do. If we don't have equipment to keep south in good shape, then most riders won't buy a season trail pass. Also trails can be closed one day and open the next, so never know when we need the equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faceman Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 The south does help the north. My area set one groomer to near Gogoma to help when there's broke. District 5 sends groomers to 9 often as well if they have snow and we don't. Some of the groomers in the south see 1000 hrs per year, per unit. There are allot of riders and lots of trails to do. If we don't have equipment to keep south in good shape, then most riders won't buy a season trail pass. Also trails can be closed one day and open the next, so never know when we need the equipment. Really!!!?? Any numbers to back that up. 1000 hrs per year..Nope. The south can trim without affecting trail conditions. The report is similar to what was proposed in 2000 I believe. It needs to happen. Clubs will not lose their identity as many are worried about. We really need to coordinate , new units only grooming 74 km of trail is just wrong. Maximize for efficiency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doogirl69 Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Really!!!?? Any numbers to back that up. 1000 hrs per year..Nope. The south can trim without affecting trail conditions. The report is similar to what was proposed in 2000 I believe. It needs to happen. Clubs will not lose their identity as many are worried about. We really need to coordinate , new units only grooming 74 km of trail is just wrong. Maximize for efficiency No kidding 1,000 hrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbakernbay Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Groomers are the top priority for most OFSC Clubs. 5-7 new Groomers each year is completely inadequate. This may lead to District wide grooming which has several major problems, primarily paid Operators versus Volunteer Operators, hard to have both. Maintenance is a huge issue. Many Club Volunteers do an amazing job maintaining and repairing their equipment, I don't know whether this would continue with a District or Association Grooming Program. The Report did recognize physical limitations such as swamps and water crossings necessitating more groomers than theoretical which our Club faces. More grooming hours per Groomer is difficult to achieve, lots of issues in shuttling groomer operators, hours of runs, etc. This is not easy, take too much away from a Club and the whole system can collapse in a hurry. Trail Permit prices need to increase, a minimum of $25 for every permit going into Groomer Replacement Fund. That is $25 x 100,000 or 2.5 million which is only another 4 groomers. We need Fed $$ like Quebec receives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 In my opinion, in 5 years the clubs will be taken over by the Districts for all grooming. For sure, this will make the trails more consistent groomed and change grooming schedules. If this will make the clubs happy, not sure. For sure it will give the clubs less headaches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 4 groomers for 2.5 mil, I think at least 10 groomers........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 In my opinion, in 5 years the clubs will be taken over by the Districts for all grooming. For sure, this will make the trails more consistent groomed and change grooming schedules. If this will make the clubs happy, not sure. For sure it will give the clubs less headaches... And less volunteers? Less trails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Sure, if the grooming association takes care of the grooming and maintenance, the clubs need less volunteers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Sure, if the grooming association takes care of the grooming and maintenance, the clubs need less volunteers.... Who's plan is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperules700 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Who's plan is that? More hours go on the equipment too! Works well if they are three clubs or so close together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greggie Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Who's plan is that? That is my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkronOrange Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 So sounds like there is a surplus in some areas and a shortage in others. Reallocate. I think, as many know, what is needed is a management structure that is not afraid to ruffle some feathers! So what if a clubs has XXXXXXXXXXX members; if they don't have any snow they don't need as much money, but try to tell them that at the time. If there isn't any snow the trails shouldn't be groomed just to keep the $$$. There is some honesty that needs to come into play here. Has anyone here passed a groomer on a trail that was not in need of grooming while wishing that a trail that they had ridden in the past couple of days had been groomed in the past few weeks? I have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Sure, if the grooming association takes care of the grooming and maintenance, the clubs need less volunteers.... Who makes up the grooming association? For The Golden Triangle Snowmobile Association (first grooming association in Ontario) it is volunteers from each of the 12 clubs that do double duty by serving on the GTSA Board. So IMO unless everyone in the grooming association is paid, you still need the volunteers. If the district takes over, it is still for the most part dedicated club or association volunteers that man the district board and committee's for the most part. In the end, we have some club volunteers that are also GTSA volunteers and District volunteers. For clubs that had their own groomers, it may not only be a re-allocation of groomers but also of volunteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sledjunk Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Who makes up the grooming association? For The Golden Triangle Snowmobile Association (first grooming association in Ontario) it is volunteers from each of the 12 clubs that do double duty by serving on the GTSA Board. So IMO unless everyone in the grooming association is paid, you still need the volunteers. If the district takes over, it is still for the most part dedicated club or association volunteers that man the district board and committee's for the most part. In the end, we have some club volunteers that are also GTSA volunteers and District volunteers. For clubs that had their own groomers, it may not only be a re-allocation of groomers but also of volunteers. Could really be an issue for clubs that have too few volunteers as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupkids Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Who makes up the grooming association? For The Golden Triangle Snowmobile Association (first grooming association in Ontario) it is volunteers from each of the 12 clubs that do double duty by serving on the GTSA Board. So IMO unless everyone in the grooming association is paid, you still need the volunteers. If the district takes over, it is still for the most part dedicated club or association volunteers that man the district board and committee's for the most part. In the end, we have some club volunteers that are also GTSA volunteers and District volunteers. For clubs that had their own groomers, it may not only be a re-allocation of groomers but also of volunteers. I think STP might have been the first !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I think STP might have been the first !! I think you are right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PISTON LAKE CRUISER Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I think STP might have been the first !! Actually, I might be mistaken but the STP certainly wasn't first. The GTSA had its 28th annual meeting in 2013 meaning the first one was in 1985. It started life as The Waterloo Snow Plan I believe and I'm not sure if 1985 was the first annual meeting of the Waterloo Snow Plan or the GTSA. The STP was started in 1986 according to their home page but with help from a representative of the Algoma Snow Plan. I don't know when the ASP started. Maybe there are some all knowing OC historians (old guys) that can chip in here with more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupkids Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Actually, I might be mistaken but the STP certainly wasn't first. The GTSA had its 28th annual meeting in 2013 meaning the first one was in 1985. It started life as The Waterloo Snow Plan I believe and I'm not sure if 1985 was the first annual meeting of the Waterloo Snow Plan or the GTSA. The STP was started in 1986 according to their home page but with help from a representative of the Algoma Snow Plan. I don't know when the ASP started. Maybe there are some all knowing OC historians (old guys) that can chip in here with more info. You could very well be correct in GTSA being first. I have been involved in STP for over 25 years now. I know our grooming model works well for us and has been used as a model for success by the OFSC many times. The central grooming has never taken away any club status. Each club is still responsible for their trails as well as any trail upgrades and maintence. We have in the past helped each other out if something massive happens (ice storm etc) Each club still does its own fundraising for trail projects and such. The problem with just grooming association is how to fund the groomers if the clubs are still selling the permits. STP is responsible for the permits (clubs sell them) and holding the funds generated. Some monies are sent back to the club as well as funding for trail work as required. The system is not perfect but what system is, it works for us !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Pete Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Soupkid, how is the permit money (the 30% retained by STP) allocated to the clubs for eligible trail expenses? Same for the equalization payment. What was the reason for separating the grooming responsibilities from the trail responsibilities? Would it make more senses to have STP take over both grooming and trail accountabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.