Jump to content

OFSC Convention- Huntsville - Sept 14-16 2018


SCBATECH

Recommended Posts

The OFSC Convention is being held in Huntsville , Sept 14 - 16 , 2018.

Will there be any new concerns brought to the table this year?

Will the STOP  program get reintroduced ?

Increase in the trail permits?

etc.

 

What are the club member hearing out there ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 9:39 AM, SCBATECH said:

The OFSC Convention is being held in Huntsville , Sept 14 - 16 , 2018.

Will there be any new concerns brought to the table this year?

Will the STOP  program get reintroduced ?

Increase in the trail permits?

etc.

 

What are the club member hearing out there ?

 

 

STOP is done for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoso said:

STOP is done for good.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is "STOP"

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The STOP Program was a partnership between the OPP and OFSC volunteers from the snowmobile community who were appointed as Special Constables / STOP Officers and who assisted the OPP with snowmobile patrol on OFSC Trails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2018 at 9:50 PM, Poo Man said:

Yea didn't the officers union complain about the lost wages?

Yup, the OPP S.A.V.E team members whined and cried to their union that our S.T.O.P officers were taking their jobs away from them and instead of running around on snowmobiles,boats, and atv's etc they were going to have to go back to regular patrol duties. The poor guys/gals. But of course the O.P.P don't say that that's the reason, instead they gave some bs excuse that its for their safety that they don't do police type duties as volunteers etc.If thats true then their OPP auxiliary unit should be disbanded as they are only VOLUNTEERS with the same amount of training! Even though they had NO proof or data to back that up!  It's a shame how the OFSC has just bowed down to the OPP and let them take away our STOP program and has watered down our trail patrol to basically walmart greeters! 

 

I certainly hope that the OFSC starts to take it's Trail Patrol SERIOUSLY now as thats all we have to patrol our trails with. The OPP are stretched thin enough as it is and not a lot of resources to cover all the trails in the province. A trail patrol model similar to that of Quebec would be a start! Or simply give more powers to the trail patrol so they can actively enforce the trails! These are OUR trails, NOT the OPP's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 9:39 AM, SCBATECH said:

The OFSC Convention is being held in Huntsville , Sept 14 - 16 , 2018.

Will there be any new concerns brought to the table this year?

Will the STOP  program get reintroduced ?

Increase in the trail permits?

etc.

 

What are the club member hearing out there ?

 

 

The OFSC AGM agenda has been available to club leaders for a few weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going and after being around for 25+ years, likely never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another rubber stamp party :wtf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wildbill said:

not sure about that . some things have changed

There is no doubt this sport/business is at the crossroads where some change is needed.

 

It sounds like they didn’t proceed with the hiring of the 4 Area Trails Managers probably for several reasons including cost, northern district issues and pushback from Districts and Clubs.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Ford Government does to assist snowmobiling, if anything.  Thankfully previous government did provide early TDF $$$.  Personally, I doubt Ford Government will openly support snowmobiling.

 

Trail Permit Fees need to go up, which they are scheduled to do this season but revenues need to increase regularly to keep up with inflation, particularly groomers, drags, fuel, etc.

 

Trail Patrol needs tools like Quebec to deter Freeloaders.  Biggest improvement would be fine goes against owner of vehicle to eliminate having to identify the Operator in court.  Make it like a parking ticket or ETR407, infraction against the vehicle owner.  OPP are unable to provide the degree of ongoing enforcement needed.  Increase is needed in fines and portion of $$$ should go to OFSC.  The government needs to help in this regard.

 

The OFSC needs to get their act together to avoid Volunteers from bailing due to discouragement and poor support.

 

Wildbill is right, change can be made but it is difficult.  Hopefully the new leadership can Right the ship before it is too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

There is no doubt this sport/business is at the crossroads where some change is needed.

 

It sounds like they didn’t proceed with the hiring of the 4 Area Trails Managers probably for several reasons including cost, northern district issues and pushback from Districts and Clubs.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Ford Government does to assist snowmobiling, if anything.  Thankfully previous government did provide early TDF $$$.  Personally, I doubt Ford Government will openly support snowmobiling.

 

Trail Permit Fees need to go up, which they are scheduled to do this season but revenues need to increase regularly to keep up with inflation, particularly groomers, drags, fuel, etc.

 

Trail Patrol needs tools like Quebec to deter Freeloaders.  Biggest improvement would be fine goes against owner of vehicle to eliminate having to identify the Operator in court.  Make it like a parking ticket or ETR407, infraction against the vehicle owner.  OPP are unable to provide the degree of ongoing enforcement needed.  Increase is needed in fines and portion of $$$ should go to OFSC.  The government needs to help in this regard.

 

The OFSC needs to get their act together to avoid Volunteers from bailing due to discouragement and poor support.

 

Wildbill is right, change can be made but it is difficult.  Hopefully the new leadership can Right the ship before it is too late.

Exactly, fine the sled owner. They have photo radar that fines the vehicle owner, we could do the same. Picture of trespassing sled on trail taken by TP and a fine gets mailed out. 500 bucks sounds fair with 80% going to OFSC. Person being fined can opt  in. to a trail pass if they so desire. This  is fair to all involved. It would not take long for the trespassing to stop. As far as AGM, still just a waste of money and could be done in a more prudent manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoso said:

Exactly, fine the sled owner. They have photo radar that fines the vehicle owner, we could do the same. Picture of trespassing sled on trail taken by TP and a fine gets mailed out. 500 bucks sounds fair with 80% going to OFSC. Person being fined can opt  in. to a trail pass if they so desire. This  is fair to all involved. It would not take long for the trespassing to stop. As far as AGM, still just a waste of money and could be done in a more prudent manner. 

Sounds like a great idea. BTW, just remember that when you are riding the still closed trails that you think should be open, you will also be trespassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Sounds like a great idea. BTW, just remember that when you are riding the still closed trails that you think should be open, you will also be trespassing.

Where is written that it’s trespassing when the trails are “closed”? If there are no “Trail Closed” signs at every road crossing?

i am a snowmobiler and the trail is groomed, so good for me to go..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Greggie said:

Where is written that it’s trespassing when the trails are “closed”? If there are no “Trail Closed” signs at every road crossing?

i am a snowmobiler and the trail is groomed, so good for me to go..

Beating a dead horse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Greggie said:

Where is written that it’s trespassing when the trails are “closed”? If there are no “Trail Closed” signs at every road crossing?

i am a snowmobiler and the trail is groomed, so good for me to go..

Did the OFSC not account for that change in regulations when they decided the ITG would be the primary source for what trails are open and closed ? Does not available on the ITG not mean the same as trail closed signs used to mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be fine in daze gone by, when the weather seemed more stable.

Now, when trails are open one day, and not the next, I'd have lost 1/2 my local riding days last year If I'd gone by the ITG.

It often lags behind by days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Did the OFSC not account for that change in regulations when they decided the ITG would be the primary source for what trails are open and closed ? Does not available on the ITG not mean the same as trail closed signs used to mean?

ITG is not definitive and it is clearly stated as such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, manotickmike said:

It would be fine in daze gone by, when the weather seemed more stable.

Now, when trails are open one day, and not the next, I'd have lost 1/2 my local riding days last year If I'd gone by the ITG.

It often lags behind by days.

It can be behind as much as a week if the volunteer that updates does not do so right away when the status changes. there is no way I am not riding local groomed trails that were just groomed and still listed as closed. There is also no way anyone cares that you do so in february when the trails have already been open and closed three times. Some people see things as black and white, if I had to fear a fine because of one person not updating an online ap, then I would not even buy a pass and give it up. not to mention, not everyone even has internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2018 at 9:37 AM, bbakernbay said:

There is no doubt this sport/business is at the crossroads where some change is needed.

 

It sounds like they didn’t proceed with the hiring of the 4 Area Trails Managers probably for several reasons including cost, northern district issues and pushback from Districts and Clubs.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Ford Government does to assist snowmobiling, if anything.  Thankfully previous government did provide early TDF $$$.  Personally, I doubt Ford Government will openly support snowmobiling.

 

Trail Permit Fees need to go up, which they are scheduled to do this season but revenues need to increase regularly to keep up with inflation, particularly groomers, drags, fuel, etc.

 

Trail Patrol needs tools like Quebec to deter Freeloaders.  Biggest improvement would be fine goes against owner of vehicle to eliminate having to identify the Operator in court.  Make it like a parking ticket or ETR407, infraction against the vehicle owner.  OPP are unable to provide the degree of ongoing enforcement needed.  Increase is needed in fines and portion of $$$ should go to OFSC.  The government needs to help in this regard.

 

The OFSC needs to get their act together to avoid Volunteers from bailing due to discouragement and poor support.

 

Wildbill is right, change can be made but it is difficult.  Hopefully the new leadership can Right the ship before it is too late.

 

It's always been my understanding that the ability to fine the registered owner has always been within the MSVA, as long as the sled hasn't been reported stolen/taken without consent ? 

 

 

Liability of owner

23 (1) Where the driver of a motorized snow vehicle who is not the owner thereof is liable for damages respecting damage or injury arising out of the operation by the driver of the motorized snow vehicle with the consent of the owner, the owner is jointly and severally liable.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 23 (1).

Idem

(2) Where a motorized snow vehicle is leased, the consent of the lessee of the motorized snow vehicle to the operation or possession thereof by some person other than the lessee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed to be the consent of the owner of the motorized snow vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 23 (2).

Owner may be convicted

24 The owner of a motorized snow vehicle may be charged with and convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or any municipal by-law regulating, governing or prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles, for which the driver of the motorized snow vehicle is subject to be charged unless, at the time of the offence, the motorized snow vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and on conviction the owner is liable to the penalty prescribed for the offence.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 24.

Offences and fines

25 Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and on conviction where a fine for the contravention is not otherwise provided for herein is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 25.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nutter said:

 

It's always been my understanding that the ability to fine the registered owner has always been within the MSVA, as long as the sled hasn't been reported stolen/taken without consent ? 

 

 

Liability of owner

23 (1) Where the driver of a motorized snow vehicle who is not the owner thereof is liable for damages respecting damage or injury arising out of the operation by the driver of the motorized snow vehicle with the consent of the owner, the owner is jointly and severally liable.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 23 (1).

Idem

(2) Where a motorized snow vehicle is leased, the consent of the lessee of the motorized snow vehicle to the operation or possession thereof by some person other than the lessee shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed to be the consent of the owner of the motorized snow vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 23 (2).

Owner may be convicted

24 The owner of a motorized snow vehicle may be charged with and convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or any municipal by-law regulating, governing or prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles, for which the driver of the motorized snow vehicle is subject to be charged unless, at the time of the offence, the motorized snow vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and on conviction the owner is liable to the penalty prescribed for the offence.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 24.

Offences and fines

25 Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and on conviction where a fine for the contravention is not otherwise provided for herein is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 25.

 

 

 

Those sections certainly appear to allow for the owners to be charged instead of the Operator.  I wonder how often this provision is invoked.  

 

Our very experienced OPP Snowmobile and Marine Officer told us that we needed to be able to positively identify the Operator in court before he would lay a charge.

 

i still think that operating on an OFSC prescribed trail without a valid Trail Permit would be much easier enforced if the Owner was the person charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...