Jump to content
bbakernbay

Just Wondering What % of OFSC Club/District Groomers are Parked

Recommended Posts

So happy to see  this movement of groomers actually happening. I have said for several years this should happen. Too many groomers sitting in the south while the northern clubs struggle to keep theirs running. This is progress. 

Edited by J Feces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also another way of looking at it....the clubs/districts need to reach out and ask for a groomer......it's tuff to send one when you don't know where the problem is. This should also be getting easier to look after with districts looking after the groomer fleet.

 

For the last few years I have read on social media where groomers are broke and there are tons just sitting around the province doing nothing, yet no correspondence have come through the d5 trail committee  of any groomer requests.......had there have been, groomers would be made available. We are moving forward though, this is a step in the right direction,  and it has happened in the past, just not really documented on social media. I know of other groomers that where moved in previous years as well from other districts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all how you look at sharing groomers. This is very tough if you look from the clubs perspective.

 

It happens in the past that there was a Trailbully shipped to the North Bay area if I am right. After a couple of weeks they got their groomer back, they used it a couple of hours and the turbo broke and parts were sucked in the engine. They were thinking that they didn't tapped off the exhaust and that the turbo started to turn from negative pressure while floating. The result was that the Pisten Bully needed a new engine and if I am right District 9 or the club/association paid for it. 

 

Under MOTS, the owner ship of the groomers are/will become of the Districts. Also under MOTS, the Districts will make a groomer schedule what need to get followed. The District can move groomers around between the clubs and give the groomer operators their task for grooming. It can be that they groom only 10 km of their club and 60 km if the neighbors club. Now you come to the point, how does the District Groomer Boss know what the status is of the trails and what need to get groomed? This is very tough at opening trails, how does the District Groomer Boss know what the ice conditions are on the creeks and swamps? From the clubs perspective, the trails and grooming them is their "baby". If you take their baby away, what will happen with the volunteers? I am not sure but from what I heard, about 20% of the volunteers will resign. And the resigning volunteers are the volunteers we need to keep this going. 

 

At District 9, the district which is far ahead from the other districts, still the clubs are doing the grooming and "own" the groomers. Not on paper but they take care of them and not the district. Also the clubs make their grooming schedules and not the district. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion in stead of selling all the reliable groomers, why can not keep every district two groomers for breakdowns and so on. The groomer market for older groomers in over flooded and the value is low....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greggie said:

It's all how you look at sharing groomers. This is very tough if you look from the clubs perspective.

 

It happens in the past that there was a Trailbully shipped to the North Bay area if I am right. After a couple of weeks they got their groomer back, they used it a couple of hours and the turbo broke and parts were sucked in the engine. They were thinking that they didn't tapped off the exhaust and that the turbo started to turn from negative pressure while floating. The result was that the Pisten Bully needed a new engine and if I am right District 9 or the club/association paid for it. 

 

Under MOTS, the owner ship of the groomers are/will become of the Districts. Also under MOTS, the Districts will make a groomer schedule what need to get followed. The District can move groomers around between the clubs and give the groomer operators their task for grooming. It can be that they groom only 10 km of their club and 60 km if the neighbors club. Now you come to the point, how does the District Groomer Boss know what the status is of the trails and what need to get groomed? This is very tough at opening trails, how does the District Groomer Boss know what the ice conditions are on the creeks and swamps? From the clubs perspective, the trails and grooming them is their "baby". If you take their baby away, what will happen with the volunteers? I am not sure but from what I heard, about 20% of the volunteers will resign. And the resigning volunteers are the volunteers we need to keep this going. 

 

At District 9, the district which is far ahead from the other districts, still the clubs are doing the grooming and "own" the groomers. Not on paper but they take care of them and not the district. Also the clubs make their grooming schedules and not the district. 

 

 

Greggie, I'm in district 5 which has moved to the MOTS system and each groomer in our area still has a groomer captain for it who decides where/when to groom. Wildman can explain it much better than I can. There is no feeling in our area clubs that their babies are being taken away from them It's working and I don't think we have lost many if any volunteers because of it.

I think you should give it a try before being seeming so negative about it. End result is simply that it is working IMHO.

Now if you could just ship us some of your snow please.

Edited by PISTON LAKE CRUISER
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Greggie, I'm in district 5 which has moved to the MOTS system and each groomer in our area still has a groomer captain for it who decides where/when to groom. Wildman can explain it much better than I can. There is no feeling in our area clubs that their babies are being taken away from them It's working and I don't think we have lost many if any volunteers because of it.

I think you should give it a try before being so negative about it. End result is simply that it is working IMHO.

Now if you could just ship us some of your snow please.

 

I am not against MOTS, but other volunteers are. Understand the three sides if it, OFSC, the Clubs and the snowmobilers. They all want the same thing, having lots of snow and well groomed trails. 

For sure it's looking outside the box, otherwise we will get there never....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Greggie said:

 

I am not against MOTS, but other volunteers are. Understand the three sides if it, OFSC, the Clubs and the snowmobilers. They all want the same thing, having lots of snow and well groomed trails. 

For sure it's looking outside the box, otherwise we will get there never....

 

 

I wonder if there is a way to get the doubting volunteers talking with some of the volunteers around District 9 or 5 that see it working so they could ask the questions they are wondering about. Either in person or by using some electronic means (I'm not a techy) like a giant face time. Do you think that would do any good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify one point. The groomers will be the property of the OFSC, managed by the Provincial Fleet Manager. They are not District owned.  If the Prov Fleet Manager wants to move a unit from district to another they can and there is basically nothing you can do about it.  Movement within a district is relatively easy. It's when groomers start to go outside the district that issues like repairs and maintenance and the ability to react to major snow events become an issue. 

 

Wildman, while I agree with your statement that operators should be taking care of units like their own, we both know that is not the case. I can look across my own district and their are clubs I would have no problem lending a unit to and there are others were the risk would be just too high.  I suspect we are no different than any other district. So now the units that I lent to another district come back and are damaged/broken and the District that had them doesn't have the money to fix them. What now. 

 

I see see you are from D-5. I suspect your district is like a lot of the southern districts and we are way below our average grooming hours. I would even guess that your district, like mine, has units that have seen little or no use this season. So on the surface it seems logical that units could be shipped to the more northern districts. D6 and D11 come to mind as both are struggling to keep up with traffic and break downs. 

 

But here's the problem. Virtually all of D1 is being blessed with the largest snow event so far this season (+25cm). Every groomer will be out tonight and over the next couple of days trying to salvage a season for our permit buyers. Now I suspect moving a groomer is a little more complicated than calling UPS or Purolator and getting overnight delivery. So what do I say to my 10,000 permit buyers when it takes 5-7 days to get the network covered because my groomers are off in another district. Not sure I want to be on the receiving end of those calls. 

 

So unless you plan on having a trucking company on stand-by to move units on short notice this idea needs a ton more work put into it so we all understand what we are getting into. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-02-09 at 11:48 PM, Big Pete said:

Once MOTS is fully implemented (May 2018) every groomer will be owned and controlled by the OFSC (aka Fleet Manager). At this point groomer deployment will outside the district/club control. So if a groomer is not being utilized in 1 area it could be moved at the fleet managers discretion. No local input required. Budget for floating would be held st the OFSC. Grooming hours would accrue to the district using the unit. And the district would be responsible for maintenance and repairs. 

 

The last report we got from our gov was that a groomer rotation program was under consideration. Groomers in high use areas would rotate to low use areas in order to get to the average of 10 yrs/ 5,000 hrs replacement target. 

Big Pete

 

Very pleased you responded with your excellent insight on what is currently underway on the MOTS initiative.

 

This sounds like exactly what is needed in the current situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issue in some areas maybe that there are insufficient Groomer Operators to run the existing complement of Groomers on a full schedule that traffic, snowfall, breakdowns, etc. Would demand.

 

This is probably less of a problem where Groomer Operators are paid.

 

There are several obvious reasons why some Groomers are not working to full capacity, including insufficient number of operators, "It's My Groomer, Nobody Else Uses It", Operator sick or on vacation, Burnout of few Operators, remoteness where there really is only one person to run it, poor maintenance, waiting for parts, physical barriers such as bad swamp crossings, lack of Volunteers, local club politics, personality issues, etc.

 

We all agree there is no easy answer, particularly in the more northern and remote areas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Big Pete said:

Just to clarify one point. The groomers will be the property of the OFSC, managed by the Provincial Fleet Manager. They are not District owned.  If the Prov Fleet Manager wants to move a unit from district to another they can and there is basically nothing you can do about it.  Movement within a district is relatively easy. It's when groomers start to go outside the district that issues like repairs and maintenance and the ability to react to major snow events become an issue. 

 

Wildman, while I agree with your statement that operators should be taking care of units like their own, we both know that is not the case. I can look across my own district and their are clubs I would have no problem lending a unit to and there are others were the risk would be just too high.  I suspect we are no different than any other district. So now the units that I lent to another district come back and are damaged/broken and the District that had them doesn't have the money to fix them. What now. 

 

I see see you are from D-5. I suspect your district is like a lot of the southern districts and we are way below our average grooming hours. I would even guess that your district, like mine, has units that have seen little or no use this season. So on the surface it seems logical that units could be shipped to the more northern districts. D6 and D11 come to mind as both are struggling to keep up with traffic and break downs. 

 

But here's the problem. Virtually all of D1 is being blessed with the largest snow event so far this season (+25cm). Every groomer will be out tonight and over the next couple of days trying to salvage a season for our permit buyers. Now I suspect moving a groomer is a little more complicated than calling UPS or Purolator and getting overnight delivery. So what do I say to my 10,000 permit buyers when it takes 5-7 days to get the network covered because my groomers are off in another district. Not sure I want to be on the receiving end of those calls. 

 

So unless you plan on having a trucking company on stand-by to move units on short notice this idea needs a ton more work put into it so we all understand what we are getting into. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 groomers we sent are rental units, d5 owns the tracks and the blades. It is permit money paying the rental whether they are used or not. The tc plan was to move those 2 groomers in the district to whoever had snow. It is a terrible year, those  2 groomers need to be used regaurdless of whether d5 has snow or not. If they get broke and its not warranty, they will get fixed, we will worry about the details after that. It is unreasonable not to work together and it is unreasonable to let the fact of who pays for what dictate whether we as a federation groom or not.   When it comes to if the lending district gets snow or not, it depends on what district and how much snow. I can assure you,  if we got 2 feet of snow, nothing would move anyway, we didn't have frost when we sent them and we don't have frost now. If we did, we would have to ask for them back and do the best we can with what we have got. As a federation, we will never move forward if we always say what if. D5 and 9 have proven there is different ways of funding the clubs within the district, we will prove groomers can be moved and trails can be groomed where the snow and riders are. MOTS has laid the groundwork for districts to become stronger, if each district moves forward, sharing resources will be much easier. And how long does it really take to fix a groomer anyway, in reality,  the groomer should be able to be fixed properly with no huge pressure if a loaner unit is provided, I know from experience the type of repairs that get done when everybody is screaming we need that groomer now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   We as districts and a federation as a whole, need to think outside the box, if we keep the same mindset and ramble around doing the same old thing for the same reasons we will fail as a whole. We don't get enough money per permit to operate the way we want, we need to be creative, moving groomers from areas that don't have snow is a real necessity, working on the logistics is too, by moving theses groomers and not sending operators to run them and allowing the clubs to operate them as they do their own will allow us to see what happens. We can work on the rest from there, and it may be the begining of a new model. All I know is that sitting here and saying what if, won't make the system better, we need to try, and that is what we are doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you go to Bonfield Snowmobile Club Facebook page and read their woes.  BSC is one of the best Clubs in Ontario but they are having a terrible season and it appears their heart and will is being beaten down.  When people lose hope then serious problems develop.

 

District 11 loses 3 more Groomers next season so more pain to come.  District 11 is bearing the brunt of considerable extra traffic this season but no help seems forthcoming.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not on the District 11 Board anymore but I certainly know Bonfield SC is well represented at the District.

 

The Mattawa & Area Snowmobile Club was successful in partnering with a southern club for the second straight year so it is clear that it can be done.  I believe an Operator came with the Groomer but am not privy to the various financial arrangements but certainly compliment both parties for finding a way to get a Groomer on the snow.  MASC has only one Groomer for 150 Kms of Trail, most of which is TOP A or TOP Connector A112A.  Their situation is complicated by having to travel on roadways through the town.

 

Float charges are a major cost to any southern - northern Groomer sharing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bbakernbay said:

I am not on the District 11 Board anymore but I certainly know Bonfield SC is well represented at the District.

 

The Mattawa & Area Snowmobile Club was successful in partnering with a southern club for the second straight year so it is clear that it can be done.  I believe an Operator came with the Groomer but am not privy to the various financial arrangements but certainly compliment both parties for finding a way to get a Groomer on the snow.  MASC has only one Groomer for 150 Kms of Trail, most of which is TOP A or TOP Connector A112A.  Their situation is complicated by having to travel on roadways through the town.

 

Float charges are a major cost to any southern - northern Groomer sharing.

I believe the MOTS model calls for 180 km per groomer average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, soupkids said:

I believe the MOTS model calls for 180 km per groomer average.

I recall it was 135 Kms but in many areas that is not practical primarily due to some trails being landlocked due to ponds, lakes or rivers,  obviously a major TOP trail like A on the RAP tour can't be equated to Club trails in most cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

I recall it was 135 Kms but in many areas that is not practical primarily due to some trails being landlocked due to ponds, lakes or rivers,  obviously a major TOP trail like A on the RAP tour can't be equated to Club trails in most cases.

as well there is no variance for traffic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wildbill said:

as well there is no variance for traffic 

 

I'am learning new stuff all the time. The top A near mattawa was insane with traffic this year. Never seen so many sleds mid week. When south is poor, traffic in the near north picks up. With two poor winters in the south, you would think there would be more funds available to the central and near north and north regions? Isn't this happening under mots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D12 had to pay back $$ last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Wildbill said:

No it is not 

Why not, thought a percentage of money from the south goes into a pot and gets moved to where it is needed the most? Sounds like I need to buy permits from north and central regions next winter then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×