Jump to content
Muskoka Man

B trail washout

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Muskoka Man said:

Hello OFSC

It is a club / district issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sledjunk said:

It is a club / district issue.

 

1 hour ago, Muskoka Man said:

Hello OFSC

You need to add MNR to the equation...

Share this post


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

 

You need to add MNR to the equation...

Who ???

We have a major washout in our C trail north, which is a a major logging road that is supposed to be maintained.

MNR's answer was we cant afford the fix it. 

Share this post


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

Who ???

We have a major washout in our C trail north, which is a a major logging road that is supposed to be maintained.

MNR's answer was we cant afford the fix it. 

They may not be able to afford to make repairs, but they will certainly mandate how the repairs are to be done. Nothing happens without their approval on Crown lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cuyuna said:

They may not be able to afford to make repairs, but they will certainly mandate how the repairs are to be done. Nothing happens without their approval on Crown lands.

I would go ahead and get it fixed without the MNR. The old saying is that forgiveness is easier to get than permission. I've seen the truth in that adage along the river at our summer place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like someone is pushing a road thru Crown Land. 

 

Ask the MNR how they plan to access the area should a fire break out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

I would go ahead and get it fixed without the MNR. The old saying is that forgiveness is easier to get than permission. I've seen the truth in that adage along the river at our summer place.

 

For the most part - I live that mentality, BUT....

 

One club (?) in District 16 tossed a clean, used, one owner mobile home frame over a crick. Cheap and works fine...

 

Someone reported it and District 16 had to git an excavator in there as soon as it semi froze, to lift it back out.

Had to edge prep the shore on both sides, and doo God knows what paperwork study on the resulting health of the speckled trout known to be in the crick.

 

I just don't understand the BS!

 

Now - this was in the late 90's mind you.

I'm sure it's only gotten worster since then. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ox said:

 

For the most part - I live that mentality, BUT....

 

One club (?) in District 16 tossed a clean, used, one owner mobile home frame over a crick. Cheap and works fine...

 

Someone reported it and District 16 had to git an excavator in there as soon as it semi froze, to lift it back out.

Had to edge prep the shore on both sides, and doo God knows what paperwork study on the resulting health of the speckled trout known to be in the crick.

 

I just don't understand the BS!

 

Now - this was in the late 90's mind you.

I'm sure it's only gotten worster since then. 

 

 

So, your saying it’s ok to off a population of speckled trout (or whatever), so you can snowmobile?  This is exactly why the regulations and “BS” is in place.  Why destroy the environment when a well planned crossing can work better and probably last longer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bucking Pig said:

So, your saying it’s ok to off a population of speckled trout (or whatever), so you can snowmobile?  This is exactly why the regulations and “BS” is in place.  Why destroy the environment when a well planned crossing can work better and probably last longer? 

I understand what you are saying if you are disturbing the waterway by doing something different than what was previously in place at the crossing. What Ox was talking about was a steel frame for a bridge that would have not likely touch the water at all. I'm pretty sure that would not "off" a fish population.  If you replace exactly what was there previously for years and do a good job of the work then I  personally don;t see an issue that either.. 

Edited by PISTON LAKE CRUISER
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I understand what you are saying if you are disturbing the waterway by doing something different than what was previously in place at the crossing. What Ox was talking about was a steel frame for a bridge that would have not likely touch the water at all. I'm pretty sure that would not "off" a fish population.  If you replace exactly what was there previously for years and do a good job of the work then I  personally don;t see an issue that either.. 

The parents had to jump thru hoops to replace an existing bridge... There had been bridges in the same spot since the mid-Thirties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both good points, however, placing a camper frame or other ad-hoc structures over a creek, while it may work for a short term, for a snowmobile, is not engineered to hold the weight of a groomer + snow, never mind what some joker might try to use it for in the off season.   If it fails, the MNRF is on the hook, liability wise, because it’s on Crown Land.  That’s why they’re so anal about it.  I’m aware of a similar situation that occurred north of Nipigon.  The club installed an old truck frame across a river.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t long enough, so the contractor pushed the banks into the river until it fit. It was not pretty.  I can assure you that asking forgiveness later didn’t work, and it was expensive to fix.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bucking Pig said:

Both good points, however, placing a camper frame or other ad-hoc structures over a creek, while it may work for a short term, for a snowmobile, is not engineered to hold the weight of a groomer + snow, never mind what some joker might try to use it for in the off season.   If it fails, the MNRF is on the hook, liability wise, because it’s on Crown Land.  That’s why they’re so anal about it.  I’m aware of a similar situation that occurred north of Nipigon.  The club installed an old truck frame across a river.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t long enough, so the contractor pushed the banks into the river until it fit. It was not pretty.  I can assure you that asking forgiveness later didn’t work, and it was expensive to fix.  

Good point about the groomer+ snow weights. In this washout case, it had/has a culvert in it. If the damage was properly fixed with a new culvert then why would that be an issue? The fish habitat is already long past destroyed by the washout. I'm pretty sure if this was a traveled sideroad or highway it would get fixed the same way very quickly by the municipality or MTO contractor.

Share this post


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

Good point about the groomer+ snow weights. In this washout case, it had/has a culvert in it. If the damage was properly fixed with a new culvert then why would that be an issue? The fish habitat is already long past destroyed by the washout. I'm pretty sure if this was a traveled sideroad or highway it would get fixed the same way very quickly by the municipality or MTO contractor.

Agreed.  This one SHOULD be a fairly quick fix.   Unfortunately, many structures that have been in place for a long time do not meet today’s standards, and when they do fail, need to be replaced with a larger structure.  Flood events are getting worse and more frequent, whether you accept climate change or not, and it’s just prudent to install a crossing that’s not going to fail again next spring.  I’m vaguely familiar with this road, and am pretty sure it’s been around forever. I’m sure the water crossings ( even though they’ve lasted this long) do not meet current standards, and should be upgraded so they don’t blow out again and cause more damage, and end up costing even more money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the clubs here had to replace a brand new culvert because the contractor installing it bent the end over about 4" when it was installed.

The bend was on the top.

Stupid in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If MNR is involved that washout will be there this sled season I'm afraid and no way around it 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hcsa and msr will get it fixed, it's a big link between the two systems.  Also if there is winter logging then it will definately be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gobills said:

Hcsa and msr will get it fixed, it's a big link between the two systems.  Also if there is winter logging then it will definately be fixed.

Probably quicker in that instance.

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

×