Grooming funds....

[XTC500]

I think we should be very careful asking for more "enforcement". If that comes by means of more OPP presence on the trails, remember, it's up to the the officers discretion/mood at the moment whether they issue a speeding ticket or not with the blanketed 50km/hr speed limit. Would make those new "850's" pretty boring to ride if you had to watch out for the "enforcement".

[02Sled]

14 minutes ago, Wyatt said:

Well compared to Quebec it seems Ontario is rather cheap? Perhaps if they were completely transparent with the costs, where the money goes and so on it would make sense?

 

The alternative is to subdivide into weekend passes, day/night only passes and so on to the point where you come up with something that is affordable for everyone.

 

I believe everyone would be willing to pay more if it meant better trail conditions.

I don't believe for the most part it's a matter of affordability. It's perceived by some as why should I because there isn't any real penalty or enforcement. I see riders out with $10K to $16K sleds wearing the latest greatest in helmets, suits and gear but no trail permit. Something tells me they can afford it.

 

All those multiple choices of passes I think would actually lead to even more abuse with people rationalizing... I bought a week night pass but my friends are riding Saturday. Nobody will likely notice my pass is only week nights. I'll take the chance. Besides if I get caught what are they going to do.

 

For the most part I don't have any problems with the trail conditions I find today. The likely most common challenge for trail conditions is the amount of traffic you see on a weekend and the need of too many riders  to think they are impressing somebody by hammering the throttle from a standstill and chewing up the trail. Or those that for some bizarre reason can't ride at a steady pace but have the incessant need to keep hitting the throttle to raise the skis, back off and repeat over and over. This sure doesn't help the trail conditions. I will agree that come the end of a weekend day the trails are getting pretty beat due to those riders and traffic volumes.

 

But what do you do? Getting them to change that behaviour is as much an uphill battle as getting people not to go off trail on private property. Daytime grooming for the most part is definitely not a good use of resource, especially on a weekend. That nice smooth ribbon of snow needs time to set up for it to have a chance at lasting. Whenever you move snow it actually emits energy which is manifested in a bit of moisture which given a bit of time will let that ribbon set up and be firmer. Run a groomer at noon on a Saturday and it won't last nearly as long as had it time to set up.

[bbakernbay]

How do Districts handle funding where some Clubs are using paid Groomer Operators and other Clubs utilize Volunteers?  This is where the District pays for Grooming fuel, major repairs and Operators.

 

Seems to me that the Clubs Using Volunteers should receive funds per hour equivalent to the average hourly wage paid to the Payroll Operators, otherwise those clubs are subsidizing Grooming by other clubs.

 

This should be almost equivalent to fundraising by those clubs using Volunteers versus paid Groomer Operators.

 

The same applies to some Clubs doing majority of repairs while some just call the Service Company.

[Wyatt]

5 hours ago, 02Sled said:

I don't believe for the most part it's a matter of affordability. It's perceived by some as why should I because there isn't any real penalty or enforcement. I see riders out with $10K to $16K sleds wearing the latest greatest in helmets, suits and gear but no trail permit. Something tells me they can afford it.

 

All those multiple choices of passes I think would actually lead to even more abuse with people rationalizing... I bought a week night pass but my friends are riding Saturday. Nobody will likely notice my pass is only week nights. I'll take the chance. Besides if I get caught what are they going to do.

 

For the most part I don't have any problems with the trail conditions I find today. The likely most common challenge for trail conditions is the amount of traffic you see on a weekend and the need of too many riders  to think they are impressing somebody by hammering the throttle from a standstill and chewing up the trail. Or those that for some bizarre reason can't ride at a steady pace but have the incessant need to keep hitting the throttle to raise the skis, back off and repeat over and over. This sure doesn't help the trail conditions. I will agree that come the end of a weekend day the trails are getting pretty beat due to those riders and traffic volumes.

 

But what do you do? Getting them to change that behaviour is as much an uphill battle as getting people not to go off trail on private property. Daytime grooming for the most part is definitely not a good use of resource, especially on a weekend. That nice smooth ribbon of snow needs time to set up for it to have a chance at lasting. Whenever you move snow it actually emits energy which is manifested in a bit of moisture which given a bit of time will let that ribbon set up and be firmer. Run a groomer at noon on a Saturday and it won't last nearly as long as had it time to set up.

It's not about affordability - snowmobiling is an expensive sport to begin with, and the permit is one of the cheapest things required. Even at the full $270 it is incredible value for the access it provides - think of the km of trails that are open, and even half that to account for closed trails. Further, you would look at the time used -> Let's say over the course of the winter you spent 24 hours on the sled, it works out to $12.08 per hour... pretty cheap I'd say - I had no problem paying that for a full season of use.

 

Regarding enforcement, why shouldn't there be more enforcement? People need to be held accountable to their decision to be on the trails unauthorized. Speed limits are there for a reason -> 50 kph is very quick and is in place for the safety of all.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

3 hours ago, Viperules700 said:

You have hit nail on head again. Problem is they need money up front at start of the season to get system ready and pay on going costs. I like concept of early permits.  The idea behind it is, if it a good season rider feels like he got great value and a bad season then ofsc should be putting some money into reserves to average out. Last two seasons have been bad in south and some central regions, so ofsc should be in good shape to handle this year's better winter, since early permit numbers have been good for several years now.  If grooming stops in early feb because revenue dries up, do you think riders will pay more next season? 

Weekly and daily permits should be available.  But in past it is believed riders bought weekly permits instead of early full season. 

Why are you trying to create fear mongering with regards to grooming stopping early when in a lot of areas, grooming hasn't even started yet. The grooming will last (if conditions warrant) as long as there is money available to pay for fuel and the other costs involved in grooming. MOTS is supposed to move the money to the areas where the grooming is happening. Instead of all this negativity at such an early point in the season why not put your sled on a trailer and take it to where there is snow to ride. You can be at open trails within an hour from your place today. That isn't too shabby for late December IMHO!

[thetorches]

2 hours ago, Wyatt said:

tIt's not about affordability - snowmobiling is an expensive sport to begin with, and the permit is one of the cheapest things required. Even at the full $290 it is incredible value for the access it provides - think of the km of trails that are open, and even half that to account for closed trails. Further, you would look at the time used -> Let's say over the course of the winter you spent 24 hours on the sled, it works out to $12.08 per hour... pretty cheap I'd say - I had no problem paying that for a full season of use.

 

Regarding enforcement, why shouldn't there be more enforcement? People need to be held accountable to their decision to be on the trails unauthorized. Speed limits are there for a reason -> 50 kph is very quick and is in place for the safety of all.

I believe the full price is $260. I don't think 50 kph is quick. If everybody actually had to go 50 kph, they would get rid of there sleds. 

[zoso]

6 hours ago, Wyatt said:

Well compared to Quebec it seems Ontario is rather cheap? Perhaps if they were completely transparent with the costs, where the money goes and so on it would make sense?

 

The alternative is to subdivide into weekend passes, day/night only passes and so on to the point where you come up with something that is affordable for everyone.

 

I believe everyone would be willing to pay more if it meant better trail conditions.

Maybe a weeknight pass at 190/230, a week day/night pass at 210/250, and a full pass at 250/280 just like ski resorts sell their seasons passes.  No early early pricing and a classic structure that is 30 bucks less across the board. Nights starting at 4pm and ending at 7am.

[bbakernbay]

1 hour ago, zoso said:

Maybe a weeknight pass at 190/230, a week day/night pass at 210/250, and a full pass at 250/280 just like ski resorts sell their seasons passes.  No early early pricing and a classic structure that is 30 bucks less across the board. Nights starting at 4pm and ending at 7am.

Sorry, can’t agree with that suggestion.  

 

Where do we stop trying to accommodate every particular person that thinks they aren’t being recognized for their particular circumstances.

 

Enforcement is already an issue, this suggestion makes it more difficult.

 

Really, how many sledders are going to restrict their riding between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., especially on weekends?

 

Trail Permits are the absolute cheapest part of snowmobiling, either pay to play or look elsewhere for your recreation.

 

 

[Wyatt]

4 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

Sorry, can’t agree with that suggestion.  

 

Where do we stop trying to accommodate every particular person that thinks they aren’t being recognized for their particular circumstances.

 

Enforcement is already an issue, this suggestion makes it more difficult.

 

Really, how many sledders are going to restrict their riding between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., especially on weekends?

 

Trail Permits are the absolute cheapest part of snowmobiling, either pay to play or look elsewhere for your recreation.

 

 

Just wondering if it would encourage more permits to be sold? 

 

I wonder if there is some sort of alternative to having OPP enforce the permits.. Could there be some other way? 

[thetorches]

I think for $190 for a season pass is one of the best deals out there. It would cost that much to go skiing 3 or 4 times in southern Ontario, where the you have 300 ft verticals. A lot more bang for your buck snowmobiling. For the pass that is.

[bbakernbay]

5 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

How do Districts handle funding where some Clubs are using paid Groomer Operators and other Clubs utilize Volunteers?  This is where the District pays for Grooming fuel, major repairs and Operators.

 

Seems to me that the Clubs Using Volunteers should receive funds per hour equivalent to the average hourly wage paid to the Payroll Operators, otherwise those clubs are subsidizing Grooming by other clubs.

 

This should be almost equivalent to fundraising by those clubs using Volunteers versus paid Groomer Operators.

 

The same applies to some Clubs doing majority of repairs while some just call the Service Company.

Just bumping this up as I can’t seem to draw any responses so far.

[pt3189]

It seems reasonable to me. Clubs with volunteer groomers and mechs should be assisted somehow. The tiny club I belong to have a core of about 8people doing 90percent of the work and it would feel like a kick in the teeth if they were made to feel second rate.not sure if that makes sense.Why is funding so secretive with this federation ? 

[Greggie]

2 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Just bumping this up as I can’t seem to draw any responses so far.

Well Brian, under MOTS every groomer operator will get paid and the groomer operator has the choice to keep it or donate it to his local club. As far as I understand every club has a budget under MOTS and if you have a volunteer mechanic, your budget goes a long way compare to the club who calls the dealer every time. So there will be clubs who are running fine and there will be clubs who are overspending and are out of money February 15. Now the District has a meeting and all clubs have a person in this meeting and there is club A running out of money because they are overspending, so does club B who get the money from the groomer operators back as donation give it to club A so that they can keep grooming and overspending? 

I am not blunt but I try to get the things on the table before it happens...

[bbakernbay]

Greggie, thank you for clarifying as I was not aware of the fact that MOTS is based upon payment to every Groomer Operator.

 

I think this is the fair way of doing it and as you suggest, a Volunteer Operator can donate the funds to their Club or agree that the Club gets the $$$.

 

I don’t know how this will work with Income Tax, the District will likely need to issue an equivalent cheque to the Club instead of the Volunteer Operator.

 

I don’t believe that MOTS is fully implemented yet in all Districts yet so this disparity is still real as all the Grooming $$$ Are now disbursed by the District.

 

[BruteMan]

I spent a good part of today riding with our club pres and this topic was discussed and he himself was pissed about the MOTS and the super secretive nature of OFSC about funding and shortfalls. what surprised me even more was the way OFSC handles the old groomers the clubs have to give them up and put them into "surplus" for new groomers and in some cases can buyout the groomers but regardless of age / running conditions no groomer ever put into surplus cannot ever be used as a groomer again on ofsc trails and have to be sold out of provence to be used as a sled trail groomer then. Kinda a crutch for small clubs that have large KM of trails with the ability to operate 2 or even 3 groomers and self fund them and insure them but nope OFSC dictates your clubs is a one groomer club and that's it.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

20 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

Greggie, thank you for clarifying as I was not aware of the fact that MOTS is based upon payment to every Groomer Operator.

 

I think this is the fair way of doing it and as you suggest, a Volunteer Operator can donate the funds to their Club or agree that the Club gets the $$$.

 

I don’t know how this will work with Income Tax, the District will likely need to issue an equivalent cheque to the Club instead of the Volunteer Operator.

 

I don't think they can issue an equivalent cheque to the club. The groomer operator is being paid so he is an employee and must have the deductions taken from the otoal earned amount. He can donate what the cheque to him is if he wishes. If the district does not handle paying the groomer operaters the way any other employer does, the district could be in alot of trouble with WSIB if there was ever an injury

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

15 minutes ago, BruteMan said:

I spent a good part of today riding with our club pres and this topic was discussed and he himself was pissed about the MOTS and the super secretive nature of OFSC about funding and shortfalls. what surprised me even more was the way OFSC handles the old groomers the clubs have to give them up and put them into "surplus" for new groomers and in some cases can buyout the groomers but regardless of age / running conditions no groomer ever put into surplus cannot ever be used as a groomer again on ofsc trails and have to be sold out of provence to be used as a sled trail groomer then. Kinda a crutch for small clubs that have large KM of trails with the ability to operate 2 or even 3 groomers and self fund them and insure them but nope OFSC dictates your clubs is a one groomer club and that's it.

The clubs don't own the groomers, the district does. The district will supply the club with the groomers it needs to groom its trails. I believe that Insurance and other expenses will be controlled and paid by the district. Someone with more knowledge on this will likely chip in. The system seems to work in District 5 last year although not much grooming was done here last year.

[BruteMan]

24 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

The clubs don't own the groomers, the district does. The district will supply the club with the groomers it needs to groom its trails. I believe that Insurance and other expenses will be controlled and paid by the district. Someone with more knowledge on this will likely chip in. The system seems to work in District 5 last year although not much grooming was done here last year.

Ya missed the part the clubs/members can buy out the surplus groomers and some have locally but that groomer regardless if its insured and maintained by a 3rd party (read not the ofsc) cannot be used by the club even if donated time on the trails. This would fall outside of the MOTS system I guess and they don't like not having control of it to track? or somehow it's not fair to the other clubs that do not have the same ability where a member owns a groomer and volunteers time and equipment to the club. 

[stoney]

8 hours ago, Wyatt said:

Regarding enforcement, why shouldn't there be more enforcement? People need to be held accountable to their decision to be on the trails unauthorized. Speed limits are there for a reason -> 50 kph is very quick and is in place for the safety of all.

The speed limit is more to do with insurance and controlling the costs as best as possible....like signage, training, etc.....

50KPH is rather slow, depending on where you are riding and your skill level......as already mentioned, at that speed, people would never be able to do the saddle bags trip they do.

3 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Sorry, can’t agree with that suggestion.  

Where do we stop trying to accommodate every particular person that thinks they aren’t being recognized for their particular circumstances.

Enforcement is already an issue, this suggestion makes it more difficult.

Really, how many sledders are going to restrict their riding between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., especially on weekends?

Trail Permits are the absolute cheapest part of snowmobiling, either pay to play or look elsewhere for your recreation.

Agree 100%.....enforcing a ski hill is easy, you need a chair lift to get back up, easy for the operator to pick up on what you have paid for or not paid for.

I think most will agree, enforcement is a major issue as it is now.....lets not try to make it even harder to do so or give people an excuse or avenue to cheat the system by not buying or riding when your day / night / weekday pass permits.

3 hours ago, Wyatt said:

Just wondering if it would encourage more permits to be sold? 

I wonder if there is some sort of alternative to having OPP enforce the permits.. Could there be some other way? 

Doubtful....what it would likely encourage is people buying a cheaper pass with a limited window to ride, but ride as though they bought the premium pass with no limitations.

 

As for more enforcement, I know you are new, but there used to be enforcement done by clubs as well the OPP......that changed few years ago and it is not only done by the OPP...which when you think about it, going backwards in the sport..... 

14 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

The clubs don't own the groomers, the district does. The district will supply the club with the groomers it needs to groom its trails. I believe that Insurance and other expenses will be controlled and paid by the district. Someone with more knowledge on this will likely chip in. The system seems to work in District 5 last year although not much grooming was done here last year.

If I am not mistaken, the Port Perry club bought a new groomer a few years ago and I thought they did it with money the club had raised over the years....if that is the case, how does ownership for that scenario work?

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

6 minutes ago, BruteMan said:

Ya missed the part the clubs/members can buy out the surplus groomers and some have locally but that groomer regardless if its insured and maintained by a 3rd party (read not the ofsc) cannot be used by the club even if donated time on the trails. This would fall outside of the MOTS system I guess and they don't like not having control of it to track? or somehow it's not fair to the other clubs that do not have the same ability where a member owns a groomer and volunteers time and equipment to the club. 

If MOTS is working the way it is supposed to the clubs should always have the groomers they need to get the trails groomed. Don't think privately owned groomers will work for liability reasons. Seems a shame but thats the way it is I believe.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

8 minutes ago, stoney said:

If I am not mistaken, the Port Perry club bought a new groomer a few years ago and I thought they did it with money the club had raised over the years....if that is the case, how does ownership for that scenario work?

Good question. I think it would go into the District cache of groomers under MOTS but stand to be corrected.

[BruteMan]

5 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

If MOTS is working the way it is supposed to the clubs should always have the groomers they need to get the trails groomed. Don't think privately owned groomers will work for liability reasons. Seems a shame but thats the way it is I believe.

see that's the key the clubs are not getting the groomers based on KM of trails and ability to groom its still based off what club the permit buyer checks when buying a permit. which MOTS is translating into traffic on that clubs trails 

 

He explained it to me this way a fictional town is split between 2 clubs each club has 300 km of trails total permits sold in town for this example would equate to 4 groomers if the town split 50/50 each club has the resources to get 2 OFSC groomers on the trails but if the town swings 75/25 then one club gets 1 the other would get 2 (because of some threshold possibly the total KM of trails) and the rest disappears into the OFSC coffers)  

 

Now expand that providence wide where some riders in the south really like to ride in the north say Hearst if they all want to support the Hearst club then all those clubs in the south are not getting that support from their local riders but that rider that had that great ride in hearst so he checks off the hearst club might only ride 1 week a year up there and rides locally for the other 4 - 8 weeks the south is seen as not having as many riders and the north is.

 

Still seems a bit ass backwards and i think the whole which club you support part of the permits needs to go and they just track permits on a province wide purchases by home address. And look at either a trail counter system for traffic like MTO or total KM of trails clubs are working to decide things like groomers.

 

If this was the case we would still have a link from marathon to thunder bay but they are still a club centric system so if the clubs don't get enough support on the permit purchase the club is considered to low funded and OFSC drops them off the system regardless if they had 50 - 100k trail rides that year from all the other clubs pass on their system

[BruteMan]

the Key points to MOTS was to reduce the amount of groomers they had to fund as it was not sustainable but in doing so they created it in such a way that those old groomers also could be purchased privately but not be donated back to the local area which to me is retarded if someone wants to take away my truck payments but let me still drive my truck i'd be all for that.

[Blake G]

I don't remember seeing anywhere in MOTS that groomer allocation is to be influenced by the number of permit buyers selecting specific clubs.

 

As far as I know - and I stand to be corrected - groomers are assigned to districts, not to clubs. Two main criteria are used to determine the number of groomers: district grooming frequency, and size of district trail network.

 

In most districts, I think the number of groomers tends to be based on frequency of use - - actual kilometres and hours of grooming (data comes from groomer GPS units). In the northern districts, the number of groomers is based on the size of the district's trail network, regardless of frequency considerations.

[BruteMan]

I'm not a expert by far just learning what i can and listening to the old guys talk im sure theres far greater details then they even know possibly the districts are assigning them that way not really sure on those points. but I just couldn't wrap my head around the whole not allowed to donate equipment & time to a club thing was pretty archaic. i mean if its insured properly what's the big deal. i am guessing it has to do with OFSC being sued for an accident with one of their groomers vs a donated equipment.

 

And if the whole districts only thing really applies then why didn't they bring that link between T-Bay and Marathon back into the OFSC fold there's still clubs operating up there.