Bill 100 and the O.L.A. may have closed our trails for good!!!

[SlowTouringGuy]

Well said!!

This needs to be an organized effort from the very top of the OFSC so that it is not a bunch of clubs, club executives, or volunteers working on this piecemeal, but rather an concerted team of all concerned, with appropriate, verifiable assurances from the government on down, so that all are spreading the same message.

Absolutely true ! Thank you and thank you Big Pete.

The OFSC needs to broker a deal between these two organizations. Not a thousand individual volunteers. I doubt the OLA trusts the government (gosh, really?) Despite what was issued in print, it is what is being said and/or speculated within their organization that really matters. And the only way this roadblock will be cleared is the intervention of a trusted intermediary. Ahead of anything else the OFSC may have on their agenda, this should be the primary burning item. All focus and energy should be directed by them to this matter because, if it is not cleared up, all other agenda items are irrelevant.

[Faceman]

Is a snowmobile club an "eligible "body " under this act?

[sledjunk]

Is a snowmobile club an "eligible "body " under this act?

Good question?

[revrnd]

Big Pete wrote:

 

 

 

 A half dozen club representatives from D-1 attended the Carleton Landowner Assoc meeting last Wednesday and listened to Tom Black, President of the OLA.

 

What was your impression of him? I've been kind of following the organization since Randy Hillier was its leader. Listening to him & watching the whole "Back Off Government" campaign wondering if they were heading down the road towards the "Freemen movement". 

[slomo]

Big Pete wrote:

 

 

What was your impression of him? I've been kind of following the organization since Randy Hillier was its leader. Listening to him & watching the whole "Back Off Government" campaign wondering if they were heading down the road towards the "Freemen movement". 

 

Won't make much of a difference...technically all land is owned by the crown (queen) and anyone who holds a deed is simply in possession for a period of time until possession changes or it reverts back to the crown. There is some land with mineral rights (few) and some with lumbering rights (a bit more but technically you have to pay a stumpage fee to government for each tree you cut) but outright ownership as these folks consider it, is not possible. (I am avoiding any mention of First Nation land possession here as a whole different ball of wax) They can squawk all they want, but really should educate themselves on what the governmental set up is.

[slomo]

Slomo

 

IMO, you are mostly correct.

 

Where I disagree is with your assumption that the "current cabale" would have an issue, or even much of a role to play in this.

 

 

SJ - I am not making any assumptions about the "current cabale" except that any change i.e. the hiring of professionals for communicating and lobbying for OFSC concerns on all governmental levels would be objectionable to them as it interupts their cozy little arrangement and is not to their benefit. So, they would, as you state, have no role in this by default.

 

Have a read of this article and then ask yourself - has anyone from OFSC lobbied or made proposal for a cut of the tourism money which is apparently available from Ontario Tourism as per this article in today's Toronto Star. If money is available for this study, how about a study as to how to boost sledding tourism in the province?

 

Liberals Investigating Vacation Villages to Boost Tourism

 

Procurement documents posted to the government’s website show that in February the province issued a tender to study the possibility of setting up “vacation villages” across Ontario. The resort-style villages are popular family holiday destinations in Europe, where they attract millions of visitors every year. Some are as simple as a cluster of holiday cottages in an idyllic countryside setting, while others also feature amenities like bowling alleys, paintball fields and indoor water parks.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/20/liberals-investigating-vacation-villages-to-boost-tourism.html

 

[revrnd]

Won't make much of a difference...technically all land is owned by the crown (queen) and anyone who holds a deed is simply in possession for a period of time until possession changes or it reverts back to the crown. There is some land with mineral rights (few) and some with lumbering rights (a bit more but technically you have to pay a stumpage fee to government for each tree you cut) but outright ownership as these folks consider it, is not possible. (I am avoiding any mention of First Nation land possession here as a whole different ball of wax) They can squawk all they want, but really should educate themselves on what the governmental set up is.

Glad you brought up those points. We have the original land grant deed for our property dated March 20th, 1867 granted by the Province of Canada. The ores and mineral rights and timber are not mentioned until a 1920 document from the Province of Ontaruo received by the owner prior to my grandparents buying the lots.

[Faceman]

Good question?

I say no, Elizabeth Marshall says we fall into the "donee" catagory ( receiver of a gift). I disagree. I dont believe a NOT FOR PROFIT snowmobile club fits anywhere as an "eligible body"

[Blake G]

It's difficult for the average sledder to know what's actually being done by OFSC, as the organization is not in the habit of sharing generous amounts of information with Joe Sledder or even with Joe Club.

I've met only 3 governors: Paul Murray (District 7), Cheryl Reid (District 6), and Marni Smith (District 4). These are three knowledgeable, intelligent, trustworthy, and well-meaning people. Two of them are members of the Ontario Conditions forum.

[Big Pete]

Big Pete wrote:

 

 

What was your impression of him? I've been kind of following the organization since Randy Hillier was its leader. Listening to him & watching the whole "Back Off Government" campaign wondering if they were heading down the road towards the "Freemen movement". 

Actually had a chance to speak to Mr Black during a break in the meeting about their position. Contrary to some comments I have read he is not anti-snowmobile or anti-trail.; He is against anybody being able to infringe on their property rights and he is sincere in the belief that Bill 100 has the potential to do just that. He is not out to close down snowmobile trails. In fact when asked by another person in the audience if the OLA was going to close all the other trails (ATV/Cycle/Walking etc) he categorically stated the OLA does not have that power. That decision is up to the individual landowners to make those decisions. What his organization is saying is make sure you are informed about all the potential risks this legislation might bring.

While the public position of the OLA is that this bill should be killed outright, he did open the door, at least a crack, to various amendments that could satisfy their concerns. Most of the landowners in attendance have no problems with snowmobile trails on their land but that agreement jeopardizes their rights to the land snowmobiles (and everybody else) are out. Is there some middle ground here. I think there is.

The other thing everyone should be aware of is there deep seated mistrust of the government as a whole and with this legislation in particular. Is that mistrust well founded or is it paranoia. To me it's not our call to make. The fact of the matter is IT IS THEIR BELIEF. And I don't think a public campaign to discredit them will be particularly successful. The answer lies in getting these parties together to negotiate a resolution. And waging a war in the media is not going to help, it will only entrench the positions.

Bill 100 is top of mind with every landowner right now. I would strongly suggest that if anyone has a chance to attend a landowners meeting they should do so. Even if you just sit and listen you will come away with a better appreciation of the situation.

[Big Pete]

I say no, Elizabeth Marshall says we fall into the "donee" catagory ( receiver of a gift). I disagree. I dont believe a NOT FOR PROFIT snowmobile club fits anywhere as an "eligible body"

Faceman, I agree that a snowmobile club does not fit the definition of an eligible body under 12-1-(H) which refers to NFPs that are registered charities. But what about clause M which states, "any other person or body prescribed by the regulations made under this act. Would this not open the door to allowing just about anybody to be an eligible body? And if I understand my civics correctly, regulations can be made or changed almost unilaterally by the minister.

[Muldar]

This whole thing is mis information based on two words "may" and "easement" with "may" being the dangerous word. Section 12(3)says " an owner of land may grant an easement with or without covenants to one or more eligible bodies. 

Tell em please, how is "may" achieved? Is it "oral" "written" or "assumed". That is what is scaring landowners and as SJ said, I don't blame them. Do all the PR you want but the only way IMHO for us to be successful is to have clarity in the wording. An updated LUP will help some but not all. 

And the really shitty part of all this is Bill 100 could drag on for quite a while leaving us hanging.

I agree unless this mess is not straighten out and put in proper trems that everyone understands and agrees to it will get ugly and drag on for years.

[soupkids]

If the government wants your land for something they will just expropriate it anyways, bill 100 does nothing but rile everybody up.

[02Sled]

If the government wants your land for something they will just expropriate it anyways, bill 100 does nothing but rile everybody up.

 

I don't believe the concern is about the province taking your property or a portion of your property. As I understand it the concern is a permanent easement on their property with the perception that it may possibly be made without their consent. The snowmobile trails are seasonal and access closed in the off season so not being permanent they won't fall into the next scenario.

 

I have read of situations in particular in the Wasaga Beach, Brocks Beach, Woodland Beach areas over the years and family friends in Brocks Beach have lived it. It starts with a waterfront landowner allowing those on back lots to have a path through his property to the waterfront many many years ago. He sells and the next landowner continues to allow it. I have even seen some narrow fenced paths on peoples property as the route to the waterfront. Then perhaps the next owner says I don't want all these people using my property to access the waterfront. He then gets told that after 50 years he can't close it off and the battle begins.

 

A permanent easement would potentially impact resale value. The next property owner may not want a trail of any sort on their property. I can understand them wanting to err on the side of caution and protect their land and their right to decide its use at their sole discretion. If I thought I would lose control over my property I would likely be doing the same until I had a definitive answer preferably in writing.

[Faceman]

Easements with or without covenants.  A landowner entering into an easement can put whatever conditions (covenants) they want. Term of use, hour of use, conditions of use, expiration dates, non tranfser conditions. BP, you are absolutely right, its the unwritten "regulations". 

[Doogirl69]

I don't believe the concern is about the province taking your property or a portion of your property. As I understand it the concern is a permanent easement on their property with the perception that it may possibly be made without their consent. The snowmobile trails are seasonal and access closed in the off season so not being permanent they won't fall into the next scenario.

 

I have read of situations in particular in the Wasaga Beach, Brocks Beach, Woodland Beach areas over the years and family friends in Brocks Beach have lived it. It starts with a waterfront landowner allowing those on back lots to have a path through his property to the waterfront many many years ago. He sells and the next landowner continues to allow it. I have even seen some narrow fenced paths on peoples property as the route to the waterfront. Then perhaps the next owner says I don't want all these people using my property to access the waterfront. He then gets told that after 50 years he can't close it off and the battle begins.

 

A permanent easement would potentially impact resale value. The next property owner may not want a trail of any sort on their property. I can understand them wanting to err on the side of caution and protect their land and their right to decide its use at their sole discretion. If I thought I would lose control over my property I would likely be doing the same until I had a definitive answer preferably in writing.

 

So who is going to pay for the survey and the lawyer fees to modify the deed? No Landowner would do that.

[02Sled]

So who is going to pay for the survey and the lawyer fees to modify the deed? No Landowner would do that.

 

Really it seems to be a lot of misinformation, incomplete information and a lack of full understanding of their rights or the potential loss of their rights to their land. I understand their apprehension and caution until a point in time where they are comfortable with the facts and reality. The situations in Wasaga area didn't have any surveys or lawyers initially. It was a sure you can walk down the side of my property along the fence line to get to the waterfront with many of them starting 50+ years ago. For our friends in Brocks Beach (just west of Wasaga) the path had been used for about 55 years. Their insurance company was concerned about liability if someone was hurt walking to the waterfront on their property and the liability associated with it. On a nice summer Saturday there would be upwards of a 100 people make the trip. The lawyers came into play when a new landowner or one who had liability insurance concerns closed off the opening in their fence or the gate and told people they couldn't use that route to the waterfront anymore.

[SlowTouringGuy]

It's difficult for the average sledder to know what's actually being done by OFSC, as the organization is not in the habit of sharing generous amounts of information with Joe Sledder or even with Joe Club.

I've met only 3 governors: Paul Murray (District 7), Cheryl Reid (District 6), and Marni Smith (District 4). These are three knowledgeable, intelligent, trustworthy, and well-meaning people. Two of them are members of the Ontario Conditions forum. Having said that, there is no way for me as a sledder to assess what the OFSC is or is not doing to deal with landowner concerns about Bill 100.

Some posters to this thread are on club executives....based on their statements, I am very concerned about what the future may hold....

Absolutely correct. Full transparency, much transparency, any transparency, is not and has not been a guiding principle of the OFSC. And if they are working their buns off to solve this issue, their genetic predisposition to Wizard of Oz management is doing them no favours.

[Faceman]

Absolutely correct. Full transparency, much transparency, any transparency, is not and has not been a guiding principle of the OFSC. And if they are working their buns off to solve this issue, their genetic predisposition to Wizard of Oz management is doing them no favours.

How many times could I hit the "like button" on that statement?

[Big Pete]

So who is going to pay for the survey and the lawyer fees to modify the deed? No Landowner would do that.

In the Wasaga Beach example, it's the owner of the million dollar cottage that just got his water access cut off.

In our world, it's the club that just spent a couple hundred grand on a fancy new bridge when the landowner 1 field over closes the trail and there is no other access possible.

[Faceman]

BP. Please do not believe that we were not targeted by the OLA, and Tom Greene and Elizabeth Marshall. The OFSC was! This is nothing more than a membership drive by the OLA as they have lost so much credibility in other parts of the province. Kurtis Andrews, another OLA lawyer says this is a good bill so why pick on us, because of our size. 

[Big Pete]

Faceman, it doesn't matter what I do or don't believe. The facts are there is a situation that threatens the very fabric of our network. We can argue all day long whether it's the gov's bill or the unrational reaction by the OLA that is the cause. But st the end of the day trails are being closed all over this province.

, I have seen the letter from the OLA to the OFSC and the veiled threats therein. No doubt the OLA has a strategy to to bring as much pressure to bear on the govt as possible. I think we were targeted because we are big, have influence and happened to be in season. I would just say lets see who else is impacted as their seasons start to unfold. Can you not see all the hiking, cycling, ATV trails that could get caught up on this. It's only a matter of time.

The ironic part of this whole mess is that the bill that was supposed to strenghten and support the world class trail network in this province has done more to damage that network than anything else.

[02Sled]

In the Wasaga Beach example, it's the owner of the million dollar cottage that just got his water access cut off.

In our world, it's the club that just spent a couple hundred grand on a fancy new bridge when the landowner 1 field over closes the trail and there is no other access possible.

In Wasaga it's the $1M home cutting off access to the $250K back lot cottage but the principle is the same. Losing the right to control access to and from your property by others

[Panther340]

As someone who owns just forty acres of farmland and bushlot......... but neighbors that have the OLA signs on their farm driveways, and hearing some grumblings over the years in the town coffee shop about various Government  interference with their land. They are in a sensitive mood. It is getting harder to make your own land choices about your bush lot logging, water drilling , stream crossings, and or saving the latest "unicorn animal" from extinction by left wing lobbyists on government .........they have good reason to be hesitant.  I doubt it is a hate on by OLA against OFSA, it is just one more thing fro farmers to worry about. I suspect the only way to fix the misinformation  is to withdraw the bill and have them go back to drawing board. Unfortunately once the headline is made it don't matter if it is true. Case in point the little Syrian boy refugee being washed up on shore  and media and politicians jumping to use it to their benefit (eg to destroy Harper) But a few months later truth comes out the boys father was one of the people profiting from the illegal boat he was working for. The story had already done the damage it could not be reversed.

[02Sled]

As someone who owns just forty acres of farmland and bushlot......... but neighbors that have the OLA signs on their farm driveways, and hearing some grumblings over the years in the town coffee shop about various Government  interference with their land. They are in a sensitive mood. It is getting harder to make your own land choices about your bush lot logging, water drilling , stream crossings, and or saving the latest "unicorn animal" from extinction by left wing lobbyists on government .........they have good reason to be hesitant.  I doubt it is a hate on by OLA against OFSA, it is just one more thing fro farmers to worry about. I suspect the only way to fix the misinformation  is to withdraw the bill and have them go back to drawing board. Unfortunately once the headline is made it don't matter if it is true. Case in point the little Syrian boy refugee being washed up on shore  and media and politicians jumping to use it to their benefit (eg to destroy Harper) But a few months later truth comes out the boys father was one of the people profiting from the illegal boat he was working for. The story had already done the damage it could not be reversed.

 

I hear the same kind of discontent from a farmer friend near Dundalk. He has a local cemetery on his property. It is about 1/2 acre out of 150 that apparently the use of was provided to the community by the owner around 1870 something based on the headstone dates. There wasn't any property transfer, it's still his property and is fenced. It seems the township at least expects him to maintain the fence, cut the grass and reset headstones that start to tip. Compensation, none. It's his property it's his responsibility.

 

He has a small creek that runs through his property. Probably no more than 4 feet wide. He's been told that to put a culvert in so that he can take his tractor across he needs a permit, submit engineered drawings, submit an impact assessment and meet specifications on what he uses for fill and where the fill comes from.