snobaron Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 As an outsider, curious as to why a club or group of clubs, such as in D16, couldn't form their own association and take over trail responsibility for their area? Issue their own permits, etc. Or is there some sort of law on the books that prevents this? Seems like the best thing for the clubs in the north would be to go their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperules700 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 As an outsider, curious as to why a club or group of clubs, such as in D16, couldn't form their own association and take over trail responsibility for their area? Issue their own permits, etc. Or is there some sort of law on the books that prevents this? Seems like the best thing for the clubs in the north would be to go their own way. Locals won't buy permits, since they ride on crown land for free and just use the trails to get to and from these access points. Liability fee's would be tough for a small assiocation. Too many rules and regulations to follow. There is savings in buying power. Hopefully once the locals realize what they are missing, they will buy permits in the future, when clubs restart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white dragon Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 As an outsider, curious as to why a club or group of clubs, such as in D16, couldn't form their own association and take over trail responsibility for their area? Issue their own permits, etc. Or is there some sort of law on the books that prevents this? Seems like the best thing for the clubs in the north would be to go their own way. if they have the equipment & manpower & insurance...why not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperules700 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 if they have the equipment & manpower & insurance...why not No one is going to buy a permit every 50km either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snobaron Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Locals won't buy permits, since they ride on crown land for free and just use the trails to get to and from these access points. Liability fee's would be tough for a small assiocation. Too many rules and regulations to follow. There is savings in buying power. Hopefully once the locals realize what they are missing, they will buy permits in the future, when clubs restart. Perhaps if the permit was less, say $40-$50 year then the locals would be more willing to purchase. I would think the quantity sold would make up for the lack of pricing. The insurance thing could be a whole nother mess though. Has it ever been made public what insurance costs are? Of course all this is moot if there continues to be less snow. We here in MN sold 35,000 less permits last year due to no snow, leaving a huge budget shortfall for grooming this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white dragon Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 No one is going to buy a permit every 50km either. you would think in district 16,the club looks after alittle more than that...wasn't that long ago Hali had its own trails system & sticker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooboy Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I am guessing with the funding for groomers and drags comming from the ofsc and not the local clubs or municipalities, when they did split off, the disctrict or ofsc "could" take the groomers, and order the removal of ALL of the trail signs. (that is what happened in Manitouwadge. Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperules700 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 you would think in district 16,the club looks after alittle more than that...wasn't that long ago Hali had its own trails system & sticker I can't see a 50 buck permit enough revenue for a remote club. Too many fixed costs. I think area's need to form an association within the ofsc. This is way they are pushing for regional permits if the locals don't buy the permits, it won't work either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techdenis007 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I was looking at the OFSC Trail map and noticed that there wasn't a trail in that district, I figured it was an omission. It wasn't that long ago that the Hearst - Hornepayne - Manitouwadge - White River run was the one to do. I've never had a sled worthy of such a trek, but would do it in an instant if funding permitted a modern toy. I was born there, the 'Wadge, have many fond memories of snowmobiling prior to the existence of the OFSC. Now in Hearst, I'm anxious to see how much traffic we get. So is there a trail South of Hearst, down towards Hornepayne then White River ? Back to the water stories .... The old man took a dip a couple of springs ago once the ice got bad. Stubborn old b---ard, he insisted on going fishing, there were already open spots on the lake. Might as well have taken the boat, they needed it to fish out the sled the next day. Now he proudly wears a floater suit .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchrocket500 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Wonder if they'd even need liability insurance if the trails are all on crown land? If you carry a canoe from one lake to the other on an old portage trail and get hurt there's no one to sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Wonder if they'd even need liability insurance if the trails are all on crown land? If you carry a canoe from one lake to the other on an old portage trail and get hurt there's no one to sue. That old portage trail is not maintained so I'm sure that's how they get away with it. By grooming, signage and brush clearing, creates a level of trail maintaintence that people expect. And I bet that's where the liability comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ox Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Just posted in Jan/Feb issue of Snowtech was a piece aboot the OFSC looking to pull out bridges in District 16. The picture shows a groomer setting on the Pic River Bridge near Marathon. Kant believe that I heard this first in a magazine as opposed to here! ??? Pulling groomers that can be used elsewhere would be understandable I guess, but bridges? Doesn't seem to be a free download of the issue, but here is the link. Also - Jan issue not yet posted anyway. http://www.snowtechmagazine.com/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo Doo Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Thats nuts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Why would you pull out a bridge? Not like you could relocate it.. It's been designed to fit in that one place. And I'm sure you can't reuse parts somewhere else, the insurance lawyers would have a field day with that one. It would also signal the OFSC has completely given up on that area for good, something I can't believe. I got a feeling this mag is just making things up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossy Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Why would you pull out a bridge? Not like you could relocate it.. It's been designed to fit in that one place. And I'm sure you can't reuse parts somewhere else, the insurance lawyers would have a field day with that one. It would also signal the OFSC has completely given up on that area for good, something I can't believe. I got a feeling this mag is just making things up... They might have a field day if they are left in too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidooboy Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 usually the bridges and culverts are pulled to limit access. remember some of this is crown land, and some are private "townships" with logging/mineral rights access. the mnr mandates the removal of many of culverts and bridges after the logging transport is completed. these roads were built for timber harvesting, not for recreational access. hence why the bridges and culverts are pulled. many entities would love to see no one access these areas by, truck, sled, atv, ect... especially the MNR, tourist outfitters and their associations. Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Many of the bridges are ebert style certified bridges. As the hiers of the bridges the OFSC now owns the bridges and therefore hasa duty to maintain them if left in place. It is not possible for the OFSC to maintain bridges on closed trails,the fundsjust are not there . This leaves very few options. The MNR is likely asking for the removal as well. All of this could be prevented if the local population can somehow pull it together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ox Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I would guess that many smaller bridges could be used elsewhere. A common 40' bridge is a 40' bridge. Build up your ends for that distance, and set it on top and drive on. Heck, that is the whole premise of the Bailey bridge found all over the north... Still seems shitty none the less... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 All of this could be prevented if the local population can somehow pull it together. That's the key isn't it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ox Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Sure is a lot of expectation, or maybe even just hope - for such a small population to find enough among it'self to fund and work for such low outcome. Heck - look at Dubre'. Without Luc, what doo they got? For that matter - what SHOULD they have? For our benefit? They get to doo the work, AND have to pay to ride on it too? Are you kidd'n me? There are always some folks that are at a point in their life that they have time, and are lookin' for something to doo. But it takes a few of these types to be able to cover such hours of community service. Kind'a tough to be working for a living, have a family to take care of, and fund and labour for the benefit of the folks from down state/province. If the local businesses don't see enough influx of trailside sales to warrent the expense of time and money, then nix it. Tourism expense is not well spent if there is not enough payback to it. Not finding any info on an "ebert" style bridge. ??? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white dragon Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Sure is a lot of expectation, or maybe even just hope - for such a small population to find enough among it'self to fund and work for such low outcome. Heck - look at Dubre'. Without Luc, what doo they got? For that matter - what SHOULD they have? For our benefit? They get to doo the work, AND have to pay to ride on it too? Are you kidd'n me? There are always some folks that are at a point in their life that they have time, and are lookin' for something to doo. But it takes a few of these types to be able to cover such hours of community service. Kind'a tough to be working for a living, have a family to take care of, and fund and labour for the benefit of the folks from down state/province. If the local businesses don't see enough influx of trailside sales to warrent the expense of time and money, then nix it. Tourism expense is not well spent if there is not enough payback to it. Not finding any info on an "ebert" style bridge. ??? . too bad city or township wouldn't take it over...but insurance will kill that plan...like you said ox...are we just walking away & never look back...better days are ahead...i hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Sure is a lot of expectation, or maybe even just hope - for such a small population to find enough among it'self to fund and work for such low outcome. Heck - look at Dubre'. Without Luc, what doo they got? For that matter - what SHOULD they have? For our benefit? They get to doo the work, AND have to pay to ride on it too? Are you kidd'n me? There are always some folks that are at a point in their life that they have time, and are lookin' for something to doo. But it takes a few of these types to be able to cover such hours of community service. Kind'a tough to be working for a living, have a family to take care of, and fund and labour for the benefit of the folks from down state/province. If the local businesses don't see enough influx of trailside sales to warrent the expense of time and money, then nix it. Tourism expense is not well spent if there is not enough payback to it. Not finding any info on an "ebert" style bridge. ??? . It is no different here we work and we pay to ride. There is a different community mindset though. Ebert Welding in New Liskeard they build excellent groomers and bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If they pull the bridges out, I guess that kind of means the District is dead for good, one would think right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 If they pull the bridges out, I guess that kind of means the District is dead for good, one would think right? they could leave the abutments then it would be as simple as dropping a bridge back in . The drive would have to come from the community though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nith Valley Sledder Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 This is what happens when you lose your volunteer base. I'm sure the OFSC could come up with money to groom trails. What they can't come up with is the volunteers to maintain the trail system to the provincial standard. I'm sure if there were more people willing to work on the trails there would also be a corresponding increase in permit sales. The OFSC doesn't have enough money to start paying people to sign and maintain trails let alone the response they would get from the volunteer base looking after the rest of the trails in the province. Relatively speaking those trails don't have near the ridership the rest of the province sees. Bang for the buck, the money is best spent on the trails the majority of the people ride. If the local population (especially the operators of tourist businesses making money off the backs of club volunteers) is unwilling to help itself then they really should not expect the rest of us to bail them out. This may seem harsh but that is the reality of it. Our sport is on hard times. We need more new blood willing to actually do the work of building, signing and maintaining trails and not just buy their permit and ride. I expect if you were to go to club meetings around the province you would find the majority of the volunteers to be 40-70 years old. The older guys are slowing down (some have been in the sport before the OFSC was formed) and retiring from the sport leaving behind big shoes and a lot of volunteer hours to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.