bbakernbay
-
Posts
2,131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by bbakernbay
-
-
From today’s BEAST Newsletter
Snowmobile Trails within City of Ottawa Limits
The Beautiful Eastern Association of Snowmobile Trails (BEAST), as well as other clubs with trails within the City of Ottawa, still do not have the required Certificate of Insurance (COI) needed to open the trails. Negotiation is ongoing between City of Ottawa and the OFSC insurance provider to reach an agreement, it's out of our hands at the club level. We will let you know as soon as we are informed that an agreement has been reached, on then we will be able to open trails within City of Ottawa. Please stay off closed trails, identified on the ITG as red "unavailable". Thank you for your patience.
The BEAST 311 along the Ottawa Valley Rail Trail (OVRT) and other BEAST trails in Lanark County are not affected and are beginning to open up as green "available" or yellow "limited available". Volunteers have been working hard to open as many trails possible as soon as possible. Groomers have been active. Please consult the Interactive Trail Guide (ITG) at https://ofsc.evtrails.com/# or the GoSnowmobiling App for available trails. Please stay off closed trails, identified on the ITG as red "unavailable".-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, soupkids said:
It's not for public viewing anymore.
You need a password, I cant even get it.
Not available anymore on NBSC website either.
-
Here is a post from NBSC Facebook from a person that is familiar with bridge reconstruction and the fact that the Temiscaming Club groomer and drag is unable to cross Ottawa River. Confirms what Turbo Doo previously posted that it was a tight fit even for double wide sled trailer.
“The bridge is under construction, so this winter will suck for the snowmobile crew, however, the groomer cannot actually fit onto the bridge due to groomer being too wide. The groomer is wider than a snowplow/transports, and cannot make the pass on a single car lane. But this has not stopped people from Ontario to trailer their way into Quebec.”
-
30 minutes ago, largedaryl said:
Interesting the CBC has not got a hold of the problems around the city of Ottawa yet. I can tell you all there has been a tons of negotiations this week with the city risk/lawyers and the OFSC/insurance vendors. We have a keen sledder on the council working OT for this. The city is very keen to get the trails open but has to cover their butt of course. There is no forecast when this may resolve... but we all know the local season here end the first/second week of March due to the warming sun killing the road sections of trail.
In our case(Ottawa clubs on city land) there was no comms this fall until I asked for the certificate of insurance in mid/late Nov. This usually comes to me direct via the District each each year without asking. The (same old) insurance vendor then asked for the city agreement for the first time ever... and the wording negotiations went from there. The reference about a court case this fall may very well have been the trigger. That part is news to me.
We got 10cm of wet snow today in Ottawa west.. so the pressure mounts from the frustrated sledders as non -city land trails are mainly open now.
Does your Club renew every Landowner Agreement every year?
Has the standard OFSC LUP Agreement been revised for this season or is it the exact same one that has been used for many years.
-
Recent post from NBSC
"Unfortunately we have bad news. The A102Q will not be open this season, as we had planned.
We were just advised that the Sno - Voyageurs club in Temiskaming is unable to groom their section of trail due to a 1 lane bridge in town that they stated they are unable to cross with the groomer.
It’s unfortunate for all involved, clubs, businesses & permit holders.
If anything changes we will be sure to advise but you’ll need to plan any trips accordingly." -
7 minutes ago, Lep said:
So if I am reading this correctly we have to pay a visit to all or landowners after this renewal.....does all our 200 clubs know this??? ….this is news to me....I sure hope I don't have to visit the pissed of landowners I have already, with the issues we have had already this season....don't know how well that may go with 2 of them.....sure hope the landscape doesn't change a lot.
The OFSC press release wasn’t perfectly clear on that and a copy referring to LUP follows. It did say “has not been renewed...” which I have never had to do before, keeps in force unless notified by Landowner but maybe that has changed.
Don’t rely on my conjecture or others, your District should be giving the latest direction, if in fact procedural changes have been implemented. It does say “in some of the affected areas” whatever that means.
“Land Use Permission agreements are secured by Clubs and Districts; this was again reconfirmed at the latest Board of Governors meeting in January. In some of the affected areas, access to the trails is dependent on the District and Club securing the necessary Land Use Permission (LUP) from the owners of the subject properties. Wherever an LUP has not yet been renewed or granted by the landowner, the trails remain closed. The OFSC has always and continues to consult with and assist Districts and Clubs to ensure key land use agreements do not result in personal liability exposure for our valuable volunteers.“
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, Lep said:
so when do u think they found this out I mean the OFSC....pretty sure the ice had not melted.
54 minutes ago, Lep said:so when do u think they found this out I mean the OFSC....pretty sure the ice had not melted.
Apparently the critical Court case was sometime in October that probably precipitated this situation. It seems OFSC had to revise their LUP Agreement as a consequence of the court decision. This takes time. Then they had to send new LUP to District/Clubs which seem like they needed to get every Landowner to review and renew the new LUP. Big Landowners likely had their lawyers get involved and maybe amendments go back and forth, etc. This takes a lot of time and Christmas interval doesn’t help so here we are in January. Sounds to me that we are lucky this hasn’t shut down more trails.
Everybody is obviously hugely disappointed, especially in those areas having major trail closures.
My major beef is OFSC timing and explanation of the issues bringing this about.
Bottom line, as it always has been, if a Landowner decides not to offer their property for trail use then game over.
Both the Feds and Province need to offer inducements to property owners to grant permission for public trail use.
-
1
-
-
The CBC News report posted above seem to be pretty factual although lacking a comment from OFSC Senior representatives. It seems to confirm the basic facts being discussed here.
I don’t believe that this thread should be locked but any poster can certainly delete their post at any time.
-
1
-
-
From CBC News
Insurance impasse puts snowmobile season on thin ice
Stu Mills9 hrs ago© Denis Babin/Radio-Canada Hundreds of kilometers of snowmobile trails criss-cross the United Counties of Prescott & Russell.
A dispute over insurance is putting the recreational snowmobile season in eastern Ontario on thin ice.
The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC), whose members operate and maintain thousands of kilometres of trails across the province, issues liability insurance certificates to private landowners whose property the trails cross.
But this year, some landowners in this region are refusing to renew that arrangement.
The United Counties of Prescott & Russell is one of those landowners. In a French-language interview, the municipality's director of planning, Louis Prevost, said its lawyers have recommended against renewing the annual certificate.
According to Prevost, they're concerned the coverage would limit civil liability in the event of an accident.
Trails closed
The imbroglio has forced the Snowmobile Club of Eastern Ontario (SCEO), an OFSC member, to close 100 kilometres of its trails, about one-quarter of its network.
"Why was it acceptable last year and not this year?" asked SCEO president Kim Melbourne. "It's frustrating."
The closures punch holes in the network of interconnected routes that take sledders from one end of the Prescott & Russell to the other, Melbourne said.
"Maybe the [snowmobile club] members will be happy just going around in circles, and when they get bored they'll just turn around and go the other way," she scoffed.
The insurance impasse means popular trails through the Larose forest, a huge wooded area in the western part of the region, is off limits, as is a former rail corridor still owned by CN, which crosses the region from the Ontario-Quebec border Ottawa's city limits.
© Denis Babin/Radio-Canada Plantagenet, Ont., restaurateur Charles Lamarche worries about the effect of…
'It's dangerous'
"Right now, it's dangerous," said snowmobiler Sébastien Saumure, who worries the sudden trail closures will catch some by surprise.
Saumure, who lives in L'Orignal, Ont., said he's more likely to go sledding in western Quebec where the trails remain uninterrupted.
That worries Charles Lamarche, who estimates half the wintertime customers at his bar-motel in Plantagenet, Ont., are snowmobilers.
"If there's no snowmobile season, I really don't know what we're going to do," he said in French.
Instead of enjoying their sport, Melbourne and other volunteers with the club will have to spend their time posting "Trail Closed" signs along the network. She's imploring members to obey them.
-
Undoubtedly the OFSC is correct but their communications and explanation of the issue is lacking in my opinion. The total impact is not yet known, hopefully some of these issue will get resolved this season.
-
18 minutes ago, Jason T said:
All the information i was able to gather, is just what people posted on the net. No idea if it is all true, nor do i have any insider type information.
- From what i have read: a snowmobile was struck by a train on CP property, that person died. It went to court, CP was able to wash there hands of it because of a clause the OFSC / insurer had in there previous land use agreement. After the court proceedings, the Insurer / OFSC removed that section of wording. CP now refuses to sign the new one because that clause was removed, leaving them open for liability.
I think the old wording, left the OFSC clubs and Volunteers at risk of some liability.
As far as i know, the court case finished in October, which is the reason for the crappy timing and scrambling to get new agreements in place.
Thanks Jason for trying to fill in the blanks.
This scenario certainly makes sense and explains the urgency of OFSC wanting to revise the LUP.
Somewhat disingenuous of OFSC Press Release saying the Insurance Policy hasn’t changed in 20 years, which is probably true, but neglecting to say that recent liability claim experience has made it absolutely necessary to amend the LUP Agreement in order to better protect OFSC Volunteers and the OFSC from claims resulting from activities not directly related to snowmobiling or outside winter season.
Below is what they said yesterday and it is a little confusing about “clubs have ... entered into agreements” which appears to put the onus on clubs being at fault. Just my interpretation, others may chime in to clarify or correct.
“Contrary to claims on various social media platforms, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE to the OFSC insurance coverage in 20 years. Any information stating our coverage has been altered is false. The truth is, some clubs have recently, through a review process, discovered they have entered into agreements which expose them to liability activities completely unrelated to snowmobile trail operations.
The OFSC does not wish to see any volunteer exposed to such risk.”
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Jason T said:
Not making excuses, but i don't think OFSC knew until the end of October. They then had to re-write the agreements taking out a section of wording, and send them to the clubs Sometime late November. That gave the local clubs Basically a month to try and get the new agreements signed off. Of course, Christmas, new Years etc. People on holidays etc.
These bigger companies had to get the new agreements checked and due diligence done on them before signing, if they didn't like the wording, or that the old clause was taken out, they did not sign the new one. (CP rail)
I don't think its right that the clubs and Volunteers are taking the $hit for it. I think if OFSC said something in November that at least there were trails at risk of not opening and a to the point reasoning, it would of saved a lot of crap slinging.
Finally we are getting some helpful information thanks to Jason T. This appears to say that OFSC revised the Standard Landowner Use Permission Agreement and directed all Clubs to then go out and get the new revised LUPs signed. Is this correct?
This in itself is a big task, especially at start of the season and always risks having someone refuse or physically cannot find the Landowner for a timely approval.
Secondly the Corporate landowners like municipalities, conservation authorities, railways, etc. are naturally going to turn over the new LUPs to their legal staff for review and guess what, this takes a lot of time and with the big landowners probably wanting revisions or even refusal.
Yes, a lot to put on the Clubs at their most trying time and secondly when you make province wide plans you need to assess the possible impact and whether it is worth doing. The impact on some Districts looks very serious.
Many of us are struggling to know what the hell really happened to cause this chaos at the worst possible time. If there are more facts to be shared, please do so. Always say there are 3 sides to every story.
Very distressing to hear that longtime Volunteers are fed up because they are a diminishing resource.
-
16 minutes ago, Strong Farmer said:
Yes I can see that being a big problem for next year, volunteer burn out after all this! I feel sorry for hard working clubs and volunteers! Many had to go out and get new permission and to re clear land to setup reroutes around affected area’s that got shut down. Thank you to those involved for giving us best possible trails in each area, this winter.
Can you say whether your landowner issues are with individual private landowners or is the issue with corporate landowners like railways, government, conservation authorities, etc.
-
1 hour ago, Goody said:
It would have been nice to know before we all bought Permits for the year! It all came to light after Dec 1st! Pretty sneaky on the OFSC part!
Why do you think it is necessarily the fault of the OFSC?
If landowners like CP Rail or some Conservation Authorities make outrageous demands concerning liability insurance, especially in December or January then what can the OFSC do about it.
Unfortunately the Landowner has all the power and it is very unfortunate that they choose to change their policy at the last minute. Very unfortunate situation and Clubs and Districts have their hands tied especially if they are signing a LUP and cannot in fact meet the legal and liability requirements stipulated by the landowners.
hopefully we will hear more details as time passes.
-
10 minutes ago, gtserider said:
No,we had a meeting with the club north of us in mid December,They specifically said CP was shutting them down.
In the case of CP Rail they are likely using this opportunity to eliminate as much traffic on their right-ofway and rail crossings as possible for the entire year. Make outrageous liability demands of the OFSC and know full well that it can’t be accepted.
Dirty pool to do that just as season gets going.
-
5 hours ago, largedaryl said:
I am in the middle of one of these negotiations. The press release is all true from the one example I am in.. .. simply horrible timing to do such a review. April would have a been a great month to start this. More stress and hassle for the few core volunteers that run the trails.... I just spent my lunch at work dealing with updates around this .. sometimes I ask myself why.
So are the Landowners, being railway, conservation authority or private individual, terminating their LUaps for their own reasons. Our Clubs LUPs just carried on year to year unless the landowner wanted to terminate.
seems strange to me that all these problems are happening this year.
The Press Release doesn’t say this but it looks like OFSC must have instructed Clubs/Districts to review their LUPs to ensure they were not in contravention of the OFSC Liability Insurance Policy.
-
2 hours ago, Jason T said:
Thanks for the post. I still find it odd they waited this long just to say that, and why they couldn't post something to the same effect much earlier.
As they said, OFSC Head office and the Governors do follow social media closely and obviously they heard clearly that a clarification was needed as to what is happening.
-
1
-
-
Thanks Yukon.
Yes indeed and very timely.
Hopefully our discussion here had some part in having this Press Release prepared and released.
I posted as a separate topic as some might miss it on this thread.
-
1
-
-
IMPORTANT NEWS UPDATE: LAND USE AGREEMENTS
Dear Snowmobilers,
The last few weeks have presented confusing misinformation regarding trail access for some areas of the provincial system.
Land Use Permission agreements are secured by Clubs and Districts; this was again reconfirmed at the latest Board of Governors meeting in January. In some of the affected areas, access to the trails is dependent on the District and Club securing the necessary Land Use Permission (LUP) from the owners of the subject properties. Wherever an LUP has not yet been renewed or granted by the landowner, the trails remain closed. The OFSC has always and continues to consult with and assist Districts and Clubs to ensure key land use agreements do not result in personal liability exposure for our valuable volunteers.
Contrary to claims on various social media platforms, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE to the OFSC insurance coverage in 20 years. Any information stating our coverage has been altered is false. The truth is, some clubs have recently, through a review process, discovered they have entered into agreements which expose them to liability activities completely unrelated to snowmobile trail operations.
The OFSC does not wish to see any volunteer exposed to such risk.
We strongly encourage our valued permit holders to stay updated and receive correct information through their Club and District board members. We remain optimistic that many of the current LUP challenges will be successfully resolved.
Sincerely,
OFSC Executive CommitteeQuestions about local land use permission and access can be directed to your District Office. Contact information for districts can be found here: https://www.ofsc.on.ca/find-your-district/
Post navigation
-
2 hours ago, Xfirecat said:
Paul, By cahonas, I was referring to.....courage. Any organization like the OFSC, and I am not blaming them by the way, needs to communicate to it’s members if there are problems in delivering services or product. What I am asking for is communication and have done so appropriately via their email. Many organizations will post a regional report explaining the facts. I have attended a recent local club meeting and It wasn’t discussed but that was before the rumours started flying. This season the weather hasn’t been cooperative. Many members will have to trailer to be able to sled this winter. If it’s a sensitive situation, more reason to stop the rumours by carefully utilizing the facts. Closed trails without explanation will result in a reduction of trail passes next year. Just sayin.
Agree 100%.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Yukon Cornelious said:
The clubs cahonas are talking about it. The OFSC barrie office knows what's going on no doubt. But for them to put out a statement for each club, comment on sensitive info, it's best to be left at the club and district offices to deal with.
Regardless , blame will always be pointed at the Barrie office, but they aren't the ones making the agreements, the clubs are.
As for secrecy, I think Excom and Corporate communications have been more transparent than ever. There does come to a point where a corporation needs to protect its stakeholders, call it a secrecy if you wish...
I agree with you to a point but if the issue is OFSC Insurance and possibly a change in policy direction from the OFSC and their Insurer, then I think that the OFSC does have a responsibility to step up and state the reasons why they cannot have Clubs or Districts enter into LUPs that are too onerous with respect to liability outside of the snowmobiling season, if in fact that is the issue.
The Clubs and Districts need OFSC to be up front with these new issue being faced with the railways, conservation authorities and other landowners that may be requiring the OFSC to accept greater liability than is reasonable.
The Districts and Clubs are not equipped to speak to this issue and more importantly how the issues will be resolved, or not, in the long term.
-
1
-
-
Sounds like you have had a lot of bad rides in the past years? What changed this year, particularly when the trails have just started to open?
-
Wow, really getting serious but hopefully that will draw some media and political attention to the issue.
-
Here you are.
OFSC Press Release Regarding Land Use Agreements
in Main Clubhouse
Posted
Great news from the BEAST Newsletter today as follows:
Snowmobile Trails within City of Ottawa Limits
We’re back in business!!!
It gives us great pleasure to announce that we have reached an insurance agreement with the City of Ottawa.The agreement will take effect immediately. All trails will remain closed until our volunteers have a chance to examine them and deem them passable for use. This work will begin immediately, and grooming will begin ASAP and continue as long as possible until as many trails as possible can be safely opened. We are asking to remain patient and DO NOT venture onto closed trails. Consult the Interactive Trail Guide for trail availability updates at https://ofsc.evtrails.com or the GoSnowmobiling App.
The salvage of the snowmobile season for our permit holders within the City of Ottawa is the direct result of the understanding and cooperation the staff of the City of Ottawa exhibited throughout. Our thanks go to them. The BEAST would also like to thank our rural councillors within the City. Eli El-Chantiry, Scott Moffat and in particular George Darouze. They were able to put the right people around the same table to speak to our representatives to come to an agreement. Well done everyone.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the BEAST we thank you for your continued patience.