Jump to content

Bill 100 and the O.L.A. may have closed our trails for good!!!


old sledhead

Recommended Posts

As of today my club in district 6 will have no trail to open next year. They have almost had 50% of our 80 landowners revoke permission to cross their land . This all has to do this the easement part of Bill 100. The OFSC seems to think its up to the volunteer to get out there and fix this. REALLY??? Well what do we do when our volunteers are quitting because they feel they have no backing and are tired of being yelled at.

Snowmobiling in Ontario is in BIG trouble in this area because of this, AND its just not my clubs problem I am hearing that all clubs in this area are in the same boat. Its sad to say because this area has had consistent snow every year, even this year we were open for eleven weeks. The club has lost the few volunteers they did have, and even if this problem gets fixed, who is going to do the work to re-open the trails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Fix what?  There is no easement issue.  No one can claim use of someone else's land without their written consent.  That is a fact.  Anything else is someone's scare tactic.  What I don't understand is: Who had anything to gain by this fear mongering in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is: Who had anything to gain by this fear mongering in the first place.

 

Apparently the OLA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fix what?  There is no easement issue.  No one can claim use of someone else's land without their written consent.  That is a fact.  Anything else is someone's scare tactic.  What I don't understand is: Who had anything to gain by this fear mongering in the first place.

... maybe a government that wants to damage and curtail the "unGreen" popularity of snowmobiling by drafting vague and ambiguous legislation that leads to negative response and general panic. They could achieve this without any direct accountability or blame ???

 

Where is any damn leadership from the OFSC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the OLA.

Exactly. This isn't the 1st time they've stirred up crap.

 

I'll be watching the SCSA Faceplant page to see what happens:

 

https://www.facebook.com/SnowCountryDistrict6/?fref=ts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... maybe a government that wants to damage and curtail the "unGreen" popularity of snowmobiling by drafting vague and ambiguous legislation that leads to negative response and general panic. They could achieve this without any direct accountability or blame ???

 

Where is any damn leadership from the OFSC ?

 

I believe they issued an information package to all of the districts to hand down to the individual clubs that countered all of the misinformation. The relationship with the landowners is done at the club level and there is typically a person to person relationship already in place with the landowners. Who better to address any concerns than the club level volunteers who have already gotten the land use permits signed by the land owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they issued an information package to all of the districts to hand down to the individual clubs that countered all of the misinformation. The relationship with the landowners is done at the club level and there is typically a person to person relationship already in place with the landowners. Who better to address any concerns than the club level volunteers who have already gotten the land use permits signed by the land owners.

 

I get what you are saying, but since the resulting panic has trickled down from the gov't, any explanation has to come down from up high as well, as people in panic mode need assurances from governmental authority. Just my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear our fearless provincial leader has come up with a plan.

Solar/wind powered "green" snowmobiles.

But only for public transit.

In Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really needs to be a strong publicity campaign to correct this, as STG suggested earlier.

 

If I were a landowner allowing a club to cross my land and I heard a hint through the media that a new law could possibly allow me to lose control of my property without any recourse, the trails would be closed immediately.  Then I am expected to put my security at jeopardy because an unpaid volunteer without ANY legal backing tries to convince me that I am safe?  Not on your life!!!!

 

I realize that the OFSC did not do anything to create this situation, but, the OFSC certainly has everything to lose.  As such, it is incumbent upon the OFSC to use all means at its disposal, including its contacts with the government, to publicize the facts and reassure the public / landowners.  These landowners were scared by media reports distributed by the OLA and are expected to be reassured by an aquaintance (at best). 

 

JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we start bashing the provincial government for this, let's remember that this law is intended to protect trails.  Some misguided group decided that this was a way to manipulate emotions for their own gain, and now we are in this situation.  The Minister has issued a statement clarifying this, but unfortunately, in our 24 hour news society, corrections are NOT news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said sledjunk. These special interest groups are getting to much passed IMO. I see it in agriculture every day. There is a growing population of fact resistant people that walk among us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a growing population of fact resistant people that walk among us

 

Yes.

 

willful ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At our District meeting last Tuesday our Governor reported that there is a new LUP that has been drawn up from OFSC. We did not see it but the Governor specifically stated that the LUP states that this is not an easement.  Hopefully this LUP will help to regain the relationship we have with any landowners that are getting misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this makes me feel sick to my stomach, every year there seems to be new challenges brought forth by different entity's that us as sledders have to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At our District meeting last Tuesday our Governor reported that there is a new LUP that has been drawn up from OFSC. We did not see it but the Governor specifically stated that the LUP states that this is not an easement.  Hopefully this LUP will help to regain the relationship we have with any landowners that are getting misinformation.

Does this mean all LUP's need to be re-signed? That is a pretty big burden on the volunteers if it is. Visiting with a landowner to shoot the breeze and maybe give him some gloves is different than asking him to re-sign paperwork and gives him a chance to re-think if he even wants us on his property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean all LUP's need to be re-signed? That is a pretty big burden on the volunteers if it is. Visiting with a landowner to shoot the breeze and maybe give him some gloves is different than asking him to re-sign paperwork and gives him a chance to re-think if he even wants us on his property.

AFAIK, it's done annually. I did it for 5 years when I was on an executive in the late 80s/early 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've only gotten them signed when landowners change or trails are re-routed. There is no expiry date on the LUP that I know of.

With so many trails on private property in central Ontario in particular how do you know when a property has been sold to a new owner. I can see some potential cases where a trail is illegaly trespassing because the club doesn't know the property has changed hands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody actually attended an OLA meeting to learn first hand what their concerns are? A half dozen club representatives from D-1 attended the Carleton Landowner Assoc meeting last Wednesday and listened to Tom Black, President of the OLA. In a nutshell their position is that Section 12 of Bill 100 could potentially allow existing agreements such as our LUP to be converted to a permanent Right of Way or Easement, and they would lose control of their land. They argue that a snowmobile club agreement could possibly be opened up to any trail user year round. And they claim they have the case law to back up their concerns. So no matter what changes the OFSC makes to the LUP, it will not alleviate the concerns of the OLA. Its the legislation that needs to be changed/clarified.

 

Now we can stand around and argue that the OLA are wrong and that they are fear mongering among landowners  but as Sled Junk stated above, put yourself in the shoes of the landowner. Who are you going to believe, the people that have a vested interest in having trails on your property or the advisers that are supposedly fighting to protect your rights. Even if you don't fully believe the OLA, you are going to err on the side of caution and cancel all land use agreements until this gets sorted out.

 

Currently the OLA position is that the entire bill needs to be killed. But they did leave the door open to possible certain amendments that would satisfy their concerns. They claim they have asked for the opportunity to make presentations to the committee reviewing the bill but have so far been shut out by the Govt. Now we all know the Liberals have a legislative majority and they can push this through whenever they want. We also know their power base is centrally located in the large urban areas of the province and they really have very little to lose by alienating rural Ontario. You could argue that forcing through a piece of legislation that guarantees all those city dwellers to rural trails strengthens their power base.

 

Having personally talked to a number of key landowners for our club, our reassurances and the new LUP are having only a limited effect. They are willing to listen but in the final analysis, if the bill passes as is you can probably kiss most of the trails on private property good bye. I sent an email to our District Gov after attending the Land Owner meeting stating we have 3 options. One is to publicly and forcefully discredit the OLA and their advisors. This would get ugly and possibly harm future relations with our landowners especially if we are not successful. Second, we join the OLA and bring what ever pressure we can to have the bill killed or amended. Of course now you run the risk of messing up our relationship with the prov govt. I am thinking of things like TDF funding, the lack of enforcement issue and last but not least our status with MTO as the sole issuer of trail permits.

 

Now our third option. The OFSC is one of the largest trail providers/operators in the province, if not the country. And we are recognized as being very good at it. I think we are held in high regard by the govt as well as the landowners. We have over 50 years of successful relationships with both parties. Is there not a role for the OFSC to be the go between in this issue. Can we not use our influence to broker a deal that will satisfy everybody. Imagine being in a position to go to the government and say we helped you get your legislation passed which was acceptable to eveybody and now we need help with TDF Funding for groomers (god forbid we could get some help in that area), or we need help solving the failed STOP program and the whole enforcement issue. And imagine the goodwill generated with landowners when we can go to them and say we helped protect your property rights. Lots of good will and respect to be earned on that front.

 

If we stand idly by and pay lip service to this issue, we can expect a very fractured (if any) trail network next season. As much as the OFSC has tried to distance itself from the issue, I see no alternative but to get involved as peacemaker in this fight. So what do I think needs to happen. Every club in the province needs to send a message to their Governor that the OFSC needs to get involved by bringing the parties together to get the issues resolved. As the largest trail network in the province we have the most to lose here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really needs to be a strong publicity campaign to correct this, as STG suggested earlier.

 

 

Yep. All radio stations for instance must carry Public Service Announcements for free on behalf of non-profit groups. It is quite easy to set up guerilla publicity campaigns using these which supply a 1-800 number or an email address to which listeners can contact organizations (politicians, political action groups etc.)involved and let their feelings be known.

 

Where TF is Craig Nicholson the OFSC communications person? The OFSC needs a third party professional communication and marketing company that knows what they are doing and can respond to crisis such as this land legislation. Ontario snowmobiling needs access to and the awareness of politicians and stake holders with influence over the whole province on federal (look at grants to Quebec sledding) provincial and municipal levels.

 

Of course the hiring of a communications company would break up and disturb the little cabale that exists between sled magazines, show organizers and other 'hangers on' who contend they are writing their articles not for any money, but for the love of the sport - IMO the love of free stuff from sponsors and free or discounted accomodation and meals on trips no one else can afford.

 

Maybe those who are attending the Annual General Meeting might start making a list of some very pointed questions to OFSC executive as to why province wide campaigns are not being organized to battle threats to snowmobiling. And why those who are being paid or partnered to do so, are not doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought a. New snowmobile if global warming doesn't kill our sport the government will omg now what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing is mis information based on two words "may" and "easement" with "may" being the dangerous word. Section 12(3)says " an owner of land may grant an easement with or without covenants to one or more eligible bodies. 

Tell em please, how is "may" achieved? Is it "oral" "written" or "assumed". That is what is scaring landowners and as SJ said, I don't blame them. Do all the PR you want but the only way IMHO for us to be successful is to have clarity in the wording. An updated LUP will help some but not all. 

And the really shitty part of all this is Bill 100 could drag on for quite a while leaving us hanging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody actually attended an OLA meeting to learn first hand what their concerns are? A half dozen club representatives from D-1 attended the Carleton Landowner Assoc meeting last Wednesday and listened to Tom Black, President of the OLA. In a nutshell their position is that Section 12 of Bill 100 could potentially allow existing agreements such as our LUP to be converted to a permanent Right of Way or Easement, and they would lose control of their land. They argue that a snowmobile club agreement could possibly be opened up to any trail user year round. And they claim they have the case law to back up their concerns. So no matter what changes the OFSC makes to the LUP, it will not alleviate the concerns of the OLA. Its the legislation that needs to be changed/clarified.

 

Now we can stand around and argue that the OLA are wrong and that they are fear mongering among landowners  but as Sled Junk stated above, put yourself in the shoes of the landowner. Who are you going to believe, the people that have a vested interest in having trails on your property or the advisers that are supposedly fighting to protect your rights. Even if you don't fully believe the OLA, you are going to err on the side of caution and cancel all land use agreements until this gets sorted out.

 

Currently the OLA position is that the entire bill needs to be killed. But they did leave the door open to possible certain amendments that would satisfy their concerns. They claim they have asked for the opportunity to make presentations to the committee reviewing the bill but have so far been shut out by the Govt. Now we all know the Liberals have a legislative majority and they can push this through whenever they want. We also know their power base is centrally located in the large urban areas of the province and they really have very little to lose by alienating rural Ontario. You could argue that forcing through a piece of legislation that guarantees all those city dwellers to rural trails strengthens their power base.

 

Having personally talked to a number of key landowners for our club, our reassurances and the new LUP are having only a limited effect. They are willing to listen but in the final analysis, if the bill passes as is you can probably kiss most of the trails on private property good bye. I sent an email to our District Gov after attending the Land Owner meeting stating we have 3 options. One is to publicly and forcefully discredit the OLA and their advisors. This would get ugly and possibly harm future relations with our landowners especially if we are not successful. Second, we join the OLA and bring what ever pressure we can to have the bill killed or amended. Of course now you run the risk of messing up our relationship with the prov govt. I am thinking of things like TDF funding, the lack of enforcement issue and last but not least our status with MTO as the sole issuer of trail permits.

 

Now our third option. The OFSC is one of the largest trail providers/operators in the province, if not the country. And we are recognized as being very good at it. I think we are held in high regard by the govt as well as the landowners. We have over 50 years of successful relationships with both parties. Is there not a role for the OFSC to be the go between in this issue. Can we not use our influence to broker a deal that will satisfy everybody. Imagine being in a position to go to the government and say we helped you get your legislation passed which was acceptable to eveybody and now we need help with TDF Funding for groomers (god forbid we could get some help in that area), or we need help solving the failed STOP program and the whole enforcement issue. And imagine the goodwill generated with landowners when we can go to them and say we helped protect your property rights. Lots of good will and respect to be earned on that front.

 

If we stand idly by and pay lip service to this issue, we can expect a very fractured (if any) trail network next season. As much as the OFSC has tried to distance itself from the issue, I see no alternative but to get involved as peacemaker in this fight. So what do I think needs to happen. Every club in the province needs to send a message to their Governor that the OFSC needs to get involved by bringing the parties together to get the issues resolved. As the largest trail network in the province we have the most to lose here.

Well said!!

 

This needs to be an organized effort from the very top of the OFSC so that it is not a bunch of clubs, club executives, or volunteers working on this piecemeal, but rather an concerted team of all concerned, with appropriate, verifiable assurances from the government on down, so that all are spreading the same message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. All radio stations for instance must carry Public Service Announcements for free on behalf of non-profit groups. It is quite easy to set up guerilla publicity campaigns using these which supply a 1-800 number or an email address to which listeners can contact organizations (politicians, political action groups etc.)involved and let their feelings be known.

 

Where TF is Craig Nicholson the OFSC communications person? The OFSC needs a third party professional communication and marketing company that knows what they are doing and can respond to crisis such as this land legislation. Ontario snowmobiling needs access to and the awareness of politicians and stake holders with influence over the whole province on federal (look at grants to Quebec sledding) provincial and municipal levels.

 

Of course the hiring of a communications company would break up and disturb the little cabale that exists between sled magazines, show organizers and other 'hangers on' who contend they are writing their articles not for any money, but for the love of the sport - IMO the love of free stuff from sponsors and free or discounted accomodation and meals on trips no one else can afford.

 

Maybe those who are attending the Annual General Meeting might start making a list of some very pointed questions to OFSC executive as to why province wide campaigns are not being organized to battle threats to snowmobiling. And why those who are being paid or partnered to do so, are not doing so?

Slomo

 

IMO, you are mostly correct.

 

Where I disagree is with your assumption that the "current cabale" would have an issue, or even much of a role to play in this.

 

Sled magazines are in business to promote sledding to current sledders, and not really to attract new sledders from the populace.  The same can be said for any magazine involved with any activity from computing to extreme sports, to model railroading.  These are aimed at participants in those activities and serve to 'keep the juices flowing' for the participants and therefore the money flowing to the manufacturers, retail organizations, etc, that are a part of the particular activity.

 

While this issue will affect the sledding community, it is not really the attention grabber that will invigorate the general sledder at large.

 

This is an issue that come near and dear to the hearts of our landowners, who may or may not be sledders.  As such, the marketing has to go out in publications that are targeted at them, e.g.  farm magazines?, cottage magazines?, rural newspapers and newsletters?

 

This is not an issue that we can expect the snowmobile magazines the lead the charge on.  While they will certainly sympathize and support our cause, because they are sledders and also make their livelihood, at least in part, from sledding, they really don't have any more influence over the landowners or any more credibility on this issue than the local clubs.

 

I agree that the coordination of this falls directly in the lap of the OFSC Communications Director in consultation and under the direction of the OFSC Board.  This is much too important an issue to be sloughed off to the clubs to manage in 200 different ways!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...