Grooming Program Managment Study.

[SuperG]

Yes definitely agree that this BOG and OFSC are way too secretive for my liking! Also with this take it or leave it attitude they got, has GOT to GO!!!!

 

I absolutely agree that there needs to be some changes as well to bring more of the province on a more consistent feel from district to district, but it is difficult to get the same quality grooming from district to district as weather plays a significant role as well as volunteer availability.

 

Simply put, this proposal that is put out with all but a mere few weeks to vote on it, is NOT enough time! I think we all can agree on that. The BOG and OFSC has to sit down and get really serious about putting some real realistic changes to the way things are done by getting input from ALL the clubs or at least districts and see what is realisticly going to work for ALL.NOT by some bureaucratic bums that just like to waste money and be secretive all the time.     

[bbakernbay]

I completely agree, I really don't see our District taking a bigger role with only one full time Secretary-Manager.

 

Many Clubs take 1.5 hours to get to the monthly meeting.

 

Our Finance and Trails Committee both meet from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. then full Board Meeting from &;00 to 9:30 or so, then travel home totals 6.5 hours minimum.  Tough in the winter.

 

You really can't accomplish much with 10 or 11 Clubs needing to participate and make decisions.

 

I think this is going to increase workload on many Volunteers.

 

You shouldn't be pushing responsibilty upwards in an organization.

 

As far as the Val Tag proposal goes I will eat my words if it happens but I really doubt this government will pull the trigger on this, too fraught with negative feedback.

 

Personally I don't think $$ from snowmobilers who don't use OFSC trails is justified.

 

What the Province needs to do is revise MVSA to have a minimum fine which is double the highest cost Trail Permit.  Secondly, make the owner of the sled the one that gets charged eliminating need to identify driver in court.  Thirdly, permit trained Trail Patrollers to issue tickets much like Parking Enforcement or ByLaw Enforcement Officers. Let's get the Freeloaders using our trails paying first before we try and scoop $$ from non-trail users via Val Tag.

[sledjunk]

I completely agree, I really don't see our District taking a bigger role with only one full time Secretary-Manager.

 

Many Clubs take 1.5 hours to get to the monthly meeting.

 

Our Finance and Trails Committee both meet from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. then full Board Meeting from &;00 to 9:30 or so, then travel home totals 6.5 hours minimum.  Tough in the winter.

 

You really can't accomplish much with 10 or 11 Clubs needing to participate and make decisions.

 

I think this is going to increase workload on many Volunteers.

 

You shouldn't be pushing responsibilty upwards in an organization.

 

As far as the Val Tag proposal goes I will eat my words if it happens but I really doubt this government will pull the trigger on this, too fraught with negative feedback.

 

Personally I don't think $$ from snowmobilers who don't use OFSC trails is justified.

 

What the Province needs to do is revise MVSA to have a minimum fine which is double the highest cost Trail Permit.  Secondly, make the owner of the sled the one that gets charged eliminating need to identify driver in court.  Thirdly, permit trained Trail Patrollers to issue tickets much like Parking Enforcement or ByLaw Enforcement Officers. Let's get the Freeloaders using our trails paying first before we try and scoop $$ from non-trail users via Val Tag.

Well said.

[Claire Voyant]

bbakenbay makes some good points.

 

However, if we can't get 10 or 12 clubs in a District to participate and make decisions, how can we expect 200+ member clubs in the OFSC to do the same?? Why aren't your clubs able to come together and put forward an alternative plan and have your (elected!) Governor advocate for it for your district and the betterment of snowmobiling province wide? Are your clubs actively engaged at meetings, or do they just sit there and listen and accept the decisions that your district executive have made (without consultation with member clubs)? How many district executive meetings have been held in the past year vs. board meetings? Is it a matter of expediency that only the district executive meets to make some quick decisions? Isn't that what the BOG is doing? Do they have to consult with all 200 clubs everytime they want to make a decision or some changes?   Yes, board meetings require a little effort and cost, but is that not the cost of doing our business? Is that not what you signed up for when you accepted your club"s nomination and election to sit on that board? One and half hours to drive attend a District meeting? Try 3 or 4 hours...and an overnight stay if the weather is bad. Cannot understand why we're not embracing technology and using more efficient and convenient ways to conduct our meetings. If my Grandma can Skype....

 

This is the system we have, and we'd better find a way to make it work. We've elected the BOG, people. One of them is representing you and your club and your district on the board. To think that they do not have our sport's best interest at heart is just plain wrong.

 

IMO, the Groomer Management Study was worth the money for all the deficiencies it identified (why so many groomers doing such short grooming runs?) and the recommendations it made. The "More on the Snow" proposal is a bold move in the right direction.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

bbakenbay makes some good points.

 

However, if we can't get 10 or 12 clubs in a District to participate and make decisions, how can we expect 200+ member clubs in the OFSC to do the same?? Why aren't your clubs able to come together and put forward an alternative plan and have your (elected!) Governor advocate for it for your district and the betterment of snowmobiling province wide? Are your clubs actively engaged at meetings, or do they just sit there and listen and accept the decisions that your district executive have made (without consultation with member clubs)? How many district executive meetings have been held in the past year vs. board meetings? Is it a matter of expediency that only the district executive meets to make some quick decisions? Isn't that what the BOG is doing? Do they have to consult with all 200 clubs everytime they want to make a decision or some changes?   Yes, board meetings require a little effort and cost, but is that not the cost of doing our business? Is that not what you signed up for when you accepted your club"s nomination and election to sit on that board? One and half hours to drive attend a District meeting? Try 3 or 4 hours...and an overnight stay if the weather is bad. Cannot understand why we're not embracing technology and using more efficient and convenient ways to conduct our meetings. If my Grandma can Skype....

 

This is the system we have, and we'd better find a way to make it work. We've elected the BOG, people. One of them is representing you and your club and your district on the board. To think that they do not have our sport's best interest at heart is just plain wrong.

 

IMO, the Groomer Management Study was worth the money for all the deficiencies it identified (why so many groomers doing such short grooming runs?) and the recommendations it made. The "More on the Snow" proposal is a bold move in the right direction.

I agree with most of what you said. In response to your question of why so many groomers doing such short grooming runs. Is it possible that traffic volume might be one of the factors in some cases?

[volunteer2]

bbakenbay makes some good points.

 

However, if we can't get 10 or 12 clubs in a District to participate and make decisions, how can we expect 200+ member clubs in the OFSC to do the same?? Why aren't your clubs able to come together and put forward an alternative plan and have your (elected!) Governor advocate for it for your district and the betterment of snowmobiling province wide? Are your clubs actively engaged at meetings, or do they just sit there and listen and accept the decisions that your district executive have made (without consultation with member clubs)? How many district executive meetings have been held in the past year vs. board meetings? Is it a matter of expediency that only the district executive meets to make some quick decisions? Isn't that what the BOG is doing? Do they have to consult with all 200 clubs everytime they want to make a decision or some changes?   Yes, board meetings require a little effort and cost, but is that not the cost of doing our business? Is that not what you signed up for when you accepted your club"s nomination and election to sit on that board? One and half hours to drive attend a District meeting? Try 3 or 4 hours...and an overnight stay if the weather is bad. Cannot understand why we're not embracing technology and using more efficient and convenient ways to conduct our meetings. If my Grandma can Skype....

 

This is the system we have, and we'd better find a way to make it work. We've elected the BOG, people. One of them is representing you and your club and your district on the board. To think that they do not have our sport's best interest at heart is just plain wrong.

 

IMO, the Groomer Management Study was worth the money for all the deficiencies it identified (why so many groomers doing such short grooming runs?) and the recommendations it made. The "More on the Snow" proposal is a bold move in the right direction.

And this may be the way it should go. The District offices will have more than one employee, some may already have, there will be a paid staff to coordinate all the grooming and maintenance with paid operators and sub coordinators. They will be responsible for all the money and pay all the bills. The paid staff will need to report to the District board.  The Chapters will be doing the ground work to establish trails and have contact with the District thru the most convienent method. They will not need to be responsible for a lot anymore.  Mike C said at our presentation that there would not be a need for grooming associations anymore with the new structure. Yup this conversation is good!

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

And this may be the way it should go. The District offices will have more than one employee, some may already have, there will be a paid staff to coordinate all the grooming and maintenance with paid operators and sub coordinators. They will be responsible for all the money and pay all the bills. The paid staff will need to report to the District board.  The Chapters will be doing the ground work to establish trails and have contact with the District thru the most convienent method. They will not need to be responsible for a lot anymore.  Mike C said at our presentation that there would not be a need for grooming associations anymore with the new structure. Yup this conversation is good!

Nick, it might be a good idea for grooming associations to keep their corporate status for a year or two if this proposal is a go. With the pace of the changes that are being tried, who's to say that grooming associations won't be the new flavour in a year or two. It would be a lot easier to keep the corporate status  for a couple of years IMO than to set up again later.

[Claire Voyant]

I agree with most of what you said. In response to your question of why so many groomers doing such short grooming runs. Is it possible that traffic volume might be one of the factors in some cases?

That's a good question. It's possible, but really only the clubs/associations/districts involved can answer that. I just know that the "...because that's the way we've always done it" mindset is counter productive to what we're trying to accomplish here. We ALL have to re-examine how our operations are conducted.

[bbakernbay]

Our V.P and I just had a meeting with the President of our neighbouring Quebec SC who grooms one of our TOP trails for us as there is an unbridged river crossing.

Here are a few points I thought you would be interested in:

There FCMQ GPS is not nearly as good as OFSC. They cannot follow groomer in real time, the data is downloaded only once per day.

They are one of approximately 11 Clubs in their FCMQ Region. Each Region gets a new groomer each year with the lucky Club paying a portion. They are the lucky ones this year and they chose the farm tractor style.

They have 2 Groomers to do 325 kms of trail, or 160 kms each which is higher than recommended by the OFSC Groomer Expert.

They pay $18 per hour to Groomer Operators.

I asked about my pet peeve, Trail Patrol and Freeloaders and I really liked his reply.

The Club has 14 trained Trail Patrollers.

If they encounter a sled without a Trail Permit they tell them they have 24 hours to purchase a Trail Permit at a location they designate.

24 hours later the Trail Patrol checks with the designated seller to determine if the Offender purchased a Permit.

If Yes, that is the end.

If No, the Trail Patroller goes to QPP and fills out a Report and the QPP lay the charges without any question.

When the Court date is set the Trail Patroller attends and gives their evidence if necessary.

The minimum fine is $500 for no TP.

They do lay charges for no left hand mirror, running studs and failure to display vehicle licence.

Last year two guys were fined $2,400 and $2,200 as a result of Trail Patrol stop.

He said the Trail Patroller is paid by FCMQ for lost wages.

He said about 50% buy the Trail Permit.

Obviously this is very simple enforcement procedure, easy for QPP as all they do is file the charge.

Why the OPP can't be persuaded or directed to follow the same procedure is beyond me.

He said it is very effective and lots of charges are laid between ON and QC Free Weekends.

He also said that there are plenty of Quebec trails that are in poor shape and poor signing so it is not necessarily perfect everywhere as some think.

[volunteer2]

Our V.P and I just had a meeting with the President of our neighbouring Quebec SC who grooms one of our TOP trails for us as there is an unbridged river crossing.

Here are a few points I thought you would be interested in:

There FCMQ GPS is not nearly as good as OFSC. They cannot follow groomer in real time, the data is downloaded only once per day.

They are one of approximately 11 Clubs in their FCMQ Region. Each Region gets a new groomer each year with the lucky Club paying a portion. They are the lucky ones this year and they chose the farm tractor style.

They have 2 Groomers to do 325 kms of trail, or 160 kms each which is higher than recommended by the OFSC Groomer Expert.

They get paid about $72 per km groomed.

They pay $18 per hour to Groomer Operators.

I asked about my pet peeve, Trail Patrol and Freeloaders and I really liked his reply.

The Club has 14 trained Trail Patrollers.

If they encounter a sled without a Trail Permit they tell them they have 24 hours to purchase a Trail Permit at a location they designate.

24 hours later the Trail Patrol checks with the designated seller to determine if the Offender purchased a Permit.

If Yes, that is the end.

If No, the Trail Patroller goes to QPP and fills out a Report and the QPP lay the charges without any question.

When the Court date is set the Trail Patroller attends and gives their evidence if necessary.

The minimum fine is $500 for no TP.

They do lay charges for no left hand mirror, running studs and failure to display vehicle licence.

Last year two guys were fined $2,400 and $2,200 as a result of Trail Patrol stop.

He said the Trail Patroller is paid by FCMQ for lost wages.

He said about 50% buy the Trail Permit.

Obviously this is very simple enforcement procedure, easy for QPP as all they do is file the charge.

Why the OPP can't be persuaded or directed to follow the same procedure is beyond me.

He said it is very effective and lots of charges are laid between ON and QC Free Weekends.

He also said that there are plenty of Quebec trails that are in poor shape and poor signing so it is not necessarily perfect everywhere as some think.

Running studs     as in a studded track is not allowed? I heard about needing mirrors and the license   well that's a given   but studs? 

[volunteer2]

Nick, it might be a good idea for grooming associations to keep their corporate status for a year or two if this proposal is a go. With the pace of the changes that are being tried, who's to say that grooming associations won't be the new flavour in a year or two. It would be a lot easier to keep the corporate status  for a couple of years IMO than to set up again later.

Thanks for the advice Brian   That will be discussed for sure next Tues night at the meeting.

[bbakernbay]

Yes SC President said studs are illegal in QC but everyone runs them and usually no one is charged except in certain circumstances.

[volunteer2]

Yes SC President said studs are illegal in QC but everyone runs them and usually no one is charged except in certain circumstances.

I guess if you are doing something stupid and the studs could cause damage or injury a charge would be understandable. I have always considered studs to be for safety, but I don't want to change subjects here. 

[volunteer2]

Our V.P and I just had a meeting with the President of our neighbouring Quebec SC who grooms one of our TOP trails for us as there is an unbridged river crossing.

Here are a few points I thought you would be interested in:

There FCMQ GPS is not nearly as good as OFSC. They cannot follow groomer in real time, the data is downloaded only once per day.

They are one of approximately 11 Clubs in their FCMQ Region. Each Region gets a new groomer each year with the lucky Club paying a portion. They are the lucky ones this year and they chose the farm tractor style.

They have 2 Groomers to do 325 kms of trail, or 160 kms each which is higher than recommended by the OFSC Groomer Expert.

They get paid about $72 per km groomed.

They pay $18 per hour to Groomer Operators.

I asked about my pet peeve, Trail Patrol and Freeloaders and I really liked his reply.

The Club has 14 trained Trail Patrollers.

If they encounter a sled without a Trail Permit they tell them they have 24 hours to purchase a Trail Permit at a location they designate.

24 hours later the Trail Patrol checks with the designated seller to determine if the Offender purchased a Permit.

If Yes, that is the end.

If No, the Trail Patroller goes to QPP and fills out a Report and the QPP lay the charges without any question.

When the Court date is set the Trail Patroller attends and gives their evidence if necessary.

The minimum fine is $500 for no TP.

They do lay charges for no left hand mirror, running studs and failure to display vehicle licence.

Last year two guys were fined $2,400 and $2,200 as a result of Trail Patrol stop.

He said the Trail Patroller is paid by FCMQ for lost wages.

He said about 50% buy the Trail Permit.

Obviously this is very simple enforcement procedure, easy for QPP as all they do is file the charge.

Why the OPP can't be persuaded or directed to follow the same procedure is beyond me.

He said it is very effective and lots of charges are laid between ON and QC Free Weekends.

He also said that there are plenty of Quebec trails that are in poor shape and poor signing so it is not necessarily perfect everywhere as some think.

This is great info and maybe should be researched by our Federation. Thanks for posting

[Wildbill]

This is great info and maybe should be researched by our Federation. Thanks for posting

One would wonder why they did not research it already 

[volunteer2]

One would wonder why they did not research it already 

Probably because no one asked them yet, I second the motion Bill

[Wildbill]

Probably because no one asked them yet, I second the motion Bill

But is our leadership not progressive?

[volunteer2]

But is our leadership not progressive?

Lets not get off topic

[Faceman]

Tend to disagree. This whole concept is not new. We've been living on borrowed time for a while. I cheer the BOG for their initiative to once again try to re-invent. I agree with BB that distance is a consideration but that can be overcome. FFC was a leap of faith and has worked well for us ( in D9) Yes the BOG is basically asking for another but I believe its the right direction. Chapters need to be explored. It would work well for a club like my own as we do not have a groomer and rely on our association ( the good ole "with our hand out") as SJ referred to it for our projects. I have no issue with that. As an FYI, D9 has one full time, one full time contract position and one part time. That's 29 clubs and associated volunteers.

No different to anything else, you can make it work. adopt it to your particular district as necessary and find your own groove or not. Nothing is going to be perfect or exactly fit every district but a change needs to occur. Hell Microsoft does it with every version. and besides which I enjoy a challenge.

I looked at BB's Que numbers, we're in that park but yes the Trail Patrol is the big one. Maybe they only hammer tourist I don't know.

[Doogirl69]

Tend to disagree. This whole concept is not new. We've been living on borrowed time for a while. I cheer the BOG for their initiative to once again try to re-invent. I agree with BB that distance is a consideration but that can be overcome. FFC was a leap of faith and has worked well for us ( in D9) Yes the BOG is basically asking for another but I believe its the right direction. Chapters need to be explored. It would work well for a club like my own as we do not have a groomer and rely on our association ( the good ole "with our hand out") as SJ referred to it for our projects. I have no issue with that. As an FYI, D9 has one full time, one full time contract position and one part time. That's 29 clubs and associated volunteers.

No different to anything else, you can make it work. adopt it to your particular district as necessary and find your own groove or not. Nothing is going to be perfect or exactly fit every district but a change needs to occur. Hell Microsoft does it with every version. and besides which I enjoy a challenge.

I looked at BB's Que numbers, we're in that park but yes the Trail Patrol is the big one. Maybe they only hammer tourist I don't know.

 

The BOG or the Clubs didn't come up with any of this. All the recommendations came from the OFSC for the BOG to approve. The old boy's in the BOG are Sheep and do whatever the OFSC wants. Some of the newer Governors don't have any say and get voted down. Its a top down process.

[bbakernbay]

Note that I deleted the line about $72 per km groomed, that can't possibly be right, maybe per hour but not per km.

[Nutter]

The BOG or the Clubs didn't come up with any of this. All the recommendations came from the OFSC for the BOG to approve. The old boy's in the BOG are Sheep and do whatever the OFSC wants. Some of the newer Governors don't have any say and get voted down. Its a top down process.

There really isn't any "old boys" left on the BOG, only one I can think of, the rest are all newbies with 5 years or less under belt at the table.

Some food for thought ... the last version of the matrix paid out grooming at $120 an hour as per the memberships wishes, run that same model for the past seasons numbers at $67 per hour and see how much would be left for the groomer replacement fund. It'll make you wonder why we're trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Canuck]

 

In order to fund new groomers, we have to blow up the club structure?

 

Having a hard time linking this latest crisis to the proposed outcome.

[Nutter]

In order to fund new groomers, we have to blow up the club structure?

Having a hard time linking this latest crisis to the proposed outcome.

John most of the new reasoning for the new structure is for the clubs to easier deal with the new NFP legislation coming out. From what I've read of it it will be an administrative nightmare for clubs.

[Canuck]

To justify this proposal on the basis of 'it will be easier', under a law that has not yet been proclaimed, is hasty. 

 

NFP legislation is not expected to be proclaimed before 2016. 

 

Existing NFP's will have 3 years to transition.

 

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Not_For_Profit.aspx

 

The proposed NFP legislation is not the issue here.