bbakernbay
-
Posts
2,131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by bbakernbay
-
-
1 hour ago, Puggz said:
I was there when it happened! Mrs and I just finished lunch and we were walking to our sleds and I hear a loud bang, not unlike a gunshot! Turned around and noticed a semi trailer as shown in the pic. 100 yards further and we'd both be dead or f'eed up big time. I googled it when we got back to our hotel and apparently, there are a number of semi related incidents in Mattawa (east side) over the last few years. One was a truck running off the road and hitting an apartment bldg. And this was before the storm hit! OMG, the MTO has to do something about this. I'm sure they have statistics that would make most normal folks vomit.
Wow, sorry to joke about something that could very well have been a much more serious situation.
There are way too many of these a Big Rigs going off the roadway, probably due to inexperienced drivers in too many cases. Anyone who has ever driven Highway 17 and westbound into Mattawa down the big hill and under the trestle surely knows the issue. Dame type of situation eastbound into a Mattawa at the curve before Myrts.
-
1
-
-
Could someone that knows the details of the trails/liability issue with CP Rail please provide more details.
-
7 minutes ago, Big Pete said:
Brian, it’s not the technical design issues of a crossing that are problem. Heck those would be easy to solve. Its coming down to liability and indemnity clauses which should not depend on which district is involved. WildBill says they have a great relationship with their regional MTO. Up until this year so did we. Or at least I thought. How can the liability and indemnity clauses be acceptable to both sides in Wild Bills district but not ours. Are they not the same? Is our insurer allowing different clauses in different districts. If yes, why? Why would they not say to us, here are clauses we can live with and are acceptable to MTO in other regions. Somehow, I think different rules are being used in different areas and the only way to bring it to light is with a centralized approach at least on the insurance/liability side.
Agreed, the liability issues certainly need a centralized approach and I am very disappointed to hear that MTO Districts are not taking a unifirm policy direction from MTO Head Office. To have this issue blow up at the start of the snowmobiling season is certainly inexcusable.
My apologies to Slow Touring Guy if he was referring to the same liability issue that you have set out.
The Province of Ontario needs to really engage with OFSC on a variety of issue of importance to Ontario snowmobiling. Sadly, the last 10 years have seen diminishing support in many ways.
-
It would be great if Ontario got the same $$$ that the Feds dole out to Quebec but that is not going to happen.
-
7 minutes ago, Wildbill said:
D10 has one agreement and a great working relationship with the MTO
Thanks Widbill, you said it better than I did.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, SlowTouringGuy said:
OhMyGawd!!! So the MTO, which is Provicial Wide, is negotiating, separately, with how many individual Snomobile Clubs?? What a waste of time and Volunteer hours. The MTO is a provincial wide organization. Wouldn’t it make sense that “our” Provincial Wide OFSC organization negotiate with them? Or we they deflect and offer the BS “we believe that local members have the relationship” cop out?
So.....members on here, from time to time, ask why Quebec seems to “ get it “. Well, it starts at the top. The Provincial Government is engaged and committed. They get various Minstries in a room and don’t ask what are the problems, they say let’s talk about how we can make it happen. Because it means XXBillions dollars in Revenue ! They get the Quebec version of the MOE and the MNR and the MTO and the Ministry of Justice and semi public/government reliant corporations like Quebec Hydro and the Pipelines over whom they have the power of making or breaking their financial year into a room. The question posed by Senior Government over these Ministries and Utilities dependent on the Government for their financial success is “ how can we all work together to make snowmobiling a success”. And they all “know” it is less a question than it is a directive. Heck, Joncas burned down the year after we were there and the next year there was a new trail through Reserve Verendrye to another lodge. I am sure more than one beaver was dislocated but neither the MOE nor the MNR spent gazillion dollars studying the potential new trail nor 12 years deciding whether to approve it. Going through La Touque you will notice that traffic lights have the usual red, orange, green illumination. They also have a fourth light illuminating a snowmobile and letting sledders know it is now safe to cross the road. How long would it take the Ontario MTO to decide whether not to even commission a study, hire a consultant, and wait for a report. The courts, in Quebec, have Capped the amount of liability that can be claimed on trails. Capped. Full stop. No multi million dollar shotgun suits naming 12 defendants. Go ahead, name whoever you want, the amount payable is not going over $50,000. (I may be out of date, so say 100). What amount of our trail permit would be reduced if liability was Capped. Who leaned on the Quebec Justice Department?
The price of a Quebec permit is WELL above ours but, because of a number of factors, a significant amount more than us is ending up on the trails.
Thats how it works. And, unlike Ontario, there is lots of money sharing. Between clubs and accommodations and gas stations and whatever. Have the OFSC rules changed or am I stil not allowed to give a Land Owner a free permit for the use of his land ?? Grease the wheels.
The Ontario Government needs to “get with the program” but, at the risk of having insults hurled, I would say that the OFSC needs to step up.
If they have, and if they are, then they need to tell the unwashed masses that they are doing something. Where’s the PR?
Quebec is not perfect. By a long shot. But the relationships they have with the government and with all the tourist dependent organizations are better, by a long shot, than Ontario.
Ontario can do the same. And I have every hope that between the Provincial Government and the OFSC it can mirror, or even Better, Quebec !!
Get with it guys !
STG
What you seem to be suggesting in your first paragraph is simply not reasonable. This is a relatively straightforward issue that is properly dealt with between the OFSC Club or District Trails Coordinator and their local MTO office, not on a centralized basis. Same thing for trail crossings of municipal highways. In most instances it is not a difficult matter to deal with.
Each and every road crossing can have many variables such as sight lines, grades, speed limits, etc. and can best be done locally in an expedited basis.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the Province/MTO should give blanket approval to every OFSC trail crossing of a MTO highway because of the importance of snowmobiling in Ontario.
What is happening in the area referred to needs to be clarified by the respective Club or District so we can better understand what is happening as the Red Closed sections are indeed baffling.
Does the Province of Ontario need to do better for the multi million dollar snowmobiling tourism business and recreation. Absolutely, we have seen a continuous diminishing support for snowmobiling in many ways, volunteer liability, liability lawsuits, minimal trail funding, government bureaucracy and staff downsizing and list goes on.
-
This driver wanted to join the gang of shedders at Valois’s in Mattawa. Could have been a lot of upset shedders if he/she would have wiped out all those sleds earlier in the day.
-
Wow, I thought snowmobiles would be riding instead of eating and drinking.
Sorry I couldn’t copy and paste their Facebook post.
-
1
-
-
On 1/16/2020 at 4:14 PM, Poo Man said:
It's not them, they have to keep up with employment regulations or they leave the ofsc open to law suits or fines. All workplaces are effected by it
What Employment Regulations are you referring to that is causing the latest problems with Conservation Authorities and Railways wanting the OFSC to be responsible for all liabilities arising from trail activity, not just snowmobiling.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Big Pete said:
The directive we are hearing is that any trail that does not have a valid land use agreement can not stay on the ITG. It must be removed. You can not leave it closed status indefinitely.
Agree with that position because many sledders unfortunately think that a Red - Closed trail can still be used by THEM. This turn of events is going to be devastating to some businesses that rely on snowmobiling. This could be a watershed year in the sport and certainly is discouraging news.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, soupkids said:
Generally speaking the OPP/Local police will lay the charge with you making a sworn statement to them regarding the trespass.
You may not have to go to court.
As far as how many times has it been done, lots up here.
Good news. Will they do the same for no OFSC Trail Permit?
-
On 1/2/2020 at 4:43 PM, GTC said:
We have been told by a local OPP, all we need to do is take a pic of the val tag and he will have them charged. This was on the matter of pipes and no permit.
Who has successfully used this method to have the OPP lay charges? Has anyone had to go to Court to present the evidence to support charge?
-
1
-
-
I am guessing that in the vast majority of cases it is local people doing the trespassing very similar to those freeloaders that seem to come out at night when the trails are open. Unfortunately there seems to be very little that can be done to stop this carelessness/vandalism even if they were identified.
I remember that our experienced OPP Officer said that to lay a charge we (Trail Patrol) needed to be able to identify the offender in court and that required them to remove their helmet which is not likely to happen.
Old time Vigilante Justice certainly had merits.
-
1
-
-
GRCA trails off limits to snowmobiles this winter
Snowmobile clubs realize agreements with GRCA left them with insurance liability they were unaware of
Village Media file photoGrand River Conservation Area trails will be off limits to snowmobilers this winter after a problem arose with the annual agreements area snowmobile clubs sign with the GRCA.
Clubs from three different districts of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) sign agreements with the GRCA allowing them to use its trails for a small fee. Those include roughly 200 kilometres of trail in District 9, which includes Wellington County.
This year those agreements were not renewed after the district governing districts of the OFSC realized there was a gap in what the snowmobile clubs' insurance policies covered and what the agreement with the GRCA covered.
In a nutshell, there was a gap, leaving the snowmobile clubs liable for non-snowmobilers on the trails said District 9 president Karen Buratynski.
"People have tried to portray it as an insurance issue. It really is an issue in the agreement that the club has signed in the past with the Grand River Conservation Authority," Buratynski said.
"What we discovered this year was that there was a clause in the agreements (with the GRCA) that actually had the clubs guarantee the safety not only of the snowmobilers that use the trail, but of all users that use that GRCA trail in the winter," she said.
"Our agreement would cover the GRCA for all of the walkers, snowshoers, equestrians ... anybody that was on that trail. And our policy covers snowmobilers. Incidents related to snowmobilers."
She said the association approached the GRCA in late September and asked it to amend the agreements so that the GRCA, not the snowmobile clubs, covered other users of the trails.
The GRCA essentially said there was a process involved in addressing such a request.
The GRCA offered to renew the agreements as they existed, but the snowmobile clubs declined because of the liability it would have left them with, Buratynski said.
She added that the individual clubs have been out finding new landowners where trails could be established, specifically getting people out of the small towns and onto the larger trail network.
Locally the move affects the Arthur Snowblazers and Fergus, Elora, Belwood snowmobile clubs that use GRCA trails.
Clubs in Conestogo, Orangeville, Elmira and Hillsburgh are also affected.It is not known how many individual snowmobilers are affected, Buratynski said, because members purchase permits that allow them to use any of the trails in the province.
The GRCA said in a statement on its web site that it isn't in a position to consider accepting that liability without a process taking place.
"The clubs’ requested changes to the agreements would substantially increase the GRCA’s obligations, liability and risk as a private landowner," says the GRCA statement posted on its web site.
"Accordingly, the GRCA advised the District 9 snowmobile clubs at that time that it was unable to accept the amendments. Renewed agreements were sent to all of the local snowmobile clubs, without revisions."
Reports to senior management and/of the GRCA board would be necessary, as well as a new program to manage increased risk and obligations, the GRCA said.
"Currently, the GRCA does not have the framework, resources or capacity to implement such a program for snowmobile use."
The clubs were also advised that the increased risk would likely result in a licence fee above the current small fee the clubs pay each year.
Both sides hope an agreement can be worked out, likely for next year.
There are currently no discussions taking place.
"GRCA and the snowmobile clubs have had great partnerships over the years, so we are really, really hopeful that this is a one-year closure while everyone regroups and that next year we will be able to work with them again,' Buratynski said.
-
Posted today by Bonfield SC
Just received a message from a justifiably angry land owner.
"Last night an individual took it upon themselves to trespass on my property using the trail and was way off the trail and in my yard disturbing my horses. This is how clubs loose there private land access. Both my neighbor and my self will not tolerate this if this happens again."
Some sledders were trespassing on a trail that is un-available - CLOSED! . As well they were stupid enough to go in his yard and frighten his horses. This behavior is how we lose trails and everyone will be traveling on roads. Its embarrassing and disturbing to we volunteers. How do we fix stupid.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 12/21/2019 at 8:11 PM, manotickmike said:
Precisely.
If the provincial government's name is on the documentation, they have a responsibility to ensure compliance.
No damn different than the roads.
They do enforce compliance but just like the highways there is absolutely zero likelihood of charging every operator who commits an infraction of the MVA or the MSVA.
-
46 minutes ago, Baylaker said:
If they’re shutting down all of them, that’s a big chunk of trail system gone!
Obviously there is a lot more to this decision that an isolated property owner problem. We will stay tuned but hopefully this is not the start of something that may be permanent.
-
10 hours ago, Wildbill said:
The OFSC insurance is ONLY insuring snowmobile use not supplying free insurance for non OFSC users such as hikers and skiers.
As it should be but undoubtedly is of major concern to many Landowners who thought/or were told that they would be covered for persons coming onto their land to use trails in other manners than official OFSC Trail Permits.
In this new instances it certainly looks like various Conservation Authorities and similar agencies who allow their trail system to be utilized by OFSC Trails wanted blanket 12 month liability coverage but OFSC Insurer likely made it clear that OFSC can’t sign LUP’s requiring insurance coverage that may include non-OFSC use.
only question is to when this was made know to the various parties.
-
On 12/9/2019 at 10:08 AM, Muskoka Man said:
To bad the OFSC did not care ,would surely be a nice for your club soup
Ridiculous comment.
-
1
-
-
On 12/16/2019 at 4:35 PM, Big Pete said:
I know the whole liability issue is a hot topic right now. Whether it’s insurance liability on trails or liability as a club/district director or officer, it’s all related.
just out of curiosity has there ever been an instance were someone has been held personally liable for fines/settlements as a result of their acting in their capacity for a club or district?
Yes, in the Parry Sound Area, I believe the Club President had to pay a substantial fine under the OHSA after one of their Groomer Operators died of exposure after groomer sank.
-
You see it on the highways every day!
I’m driving 120 kmh on 400 or 401 and guys blow by you as if you were standing still and repeatedly changing lanes in a very dangerous manner. One small miscue by someone not seeing them and life’s can be lost over this selfish and crazy behaviour.
-
1
-
-
I continue to be amazed when I drive Highway 11 as to how many trailers are towing sleds and ATVs with what certainly looks to be bargain basement ratchet straps and most times only one at the back end. Recipe for disaster. I used Superclamp on skis and 2 ratchet straps on the rear and still wondered whether I was legal and safe.
Once you have tossed the packaging for a ratchet strap(s) there is really nothing to give you or enforcement staff any idea as to prescribed load rating.
Please post the current legal requirements for secure ENT.
-
4 hours ago, Nunz said:
I have a few I’ll sell u cheap bought a few about 4 years ago and haven’t used them since. Pm If interested
Obviously not a ringing endorsement from Nunz!
-
On 9/25/2019 at 8:21 PM, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:
I believe he is CEO at Powerhouse Controls in Stratford
Wow, he certainly must be a dedicated snowmobiler to add this OFSC responsibility to his very senior executive role. Thank you. Evil for taking this on.
Valois in Mattawa is Booming Today
in Main Clubhouse
Posted
Valois Facebook post after the “Accident”.