Why is it a 190 bucks already

[Big Pete]

1 hour ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Permits cannot be sold on the spot in Ontario. On line sales only unfortunately.

But that is a policy decision by OFSC. Could be amended to accommodate on trail sales. You would need MTO approval for an increased on-trail fee similar to Quebec.

[02Sled]

28 minutes ago, Big Pete said:

But that is a policy decision by OFSC. Could be amended to accommodate on trail sales. You would need MTO approval for an increased on-trail fee similar to Quebec.

I believe you will find it was MTO that said online only.

[Big Pete]

11 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

I believe you will find it was MTO that said online only.

Requested a copy of the MTO contract with OFSC under a Freedom of Information request. It was signed August 2016 by the President and the Executive Director and there is nothing in it relating to on-line only sales. In fact it explicitly allows for clubs to hold their own inventories of permits. My belief is the BoG wanted on-line only in order to control all the funding and they just blamed in on MTO so the membership would just go along with it.

 

So unless you are privy to some other information/documentation, the on-line policy is an OFSC policy.

[02Sled]

1 hour ago, Big Pete said:

Requested a copy of the MTO contract with OFSC under a Freedom of Information request. It was signed August 2016 by the President and the Executive Director and there is nothing in it relating to on-line only sales. In fact it explicitly allows for clubs to hold their own inventories of permits. My belief is the BoG wanted on-line only in order to control all the funding and they just blamed in on MTO so the membership would just go along with it.

 

So unless you are privy to some other information/documentation, the on-line policy is an OFSC policy.

With the accounting and financial controls around the permits they all had to be accounted for and control of the monies would still be channeled through whatever direction necessary. The clubs had to reconcile the permits and the funds collected. I believe there were a couple of motivations for the online only direction. I have seen permits sold in the past where there was barely any information on the form. i.e. Sold to John Smith, Port  Severn, Ontario, no address, no sled identifiers. After all everyone knows John Smith, he's a regular in the small town. We don't need all that information and he's a friend so I'm not going to bug him about not filling in the form completely. After all we have is money and that's all that counts. Another part of the equation was, Hey Fred... I know I missed the cut off for the early permit discount but it's only by a week. Sure John, no problem, we haven't sent the permit forms and money in yet. We'll just date it for the day before the discount ended. The MTO apparently wanted to put a stop to such.

[sledjunk]

10 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

With the accounting and financial controls around the permits they all had to be accounted for and control of the monies would still be channeled through whatever direction necessary. The clubs had to reconcile the permits and the funds collected. I believe there were a couple of motivations for the online only direction. I have seen permits sold in the past where there was barely any information on the form. i.e. Sold to John Smith, Port  Severn, Ontario, no address, no sled identifiers. After all everyone knows John Smith, he's a regular in the small town. We don't need all that information and he's a friend so I'm not going to bug him about not filling in the form completely. After all we have is money and that's all that counts. Another part of the equation was, Hey Fred... I know I missed the cut off for the early permit discount but it's only by a week. Sure John, no problem, we haven't sent the permit forms and money in yet. We'll just date it for the day before the discount ended. The MTO apparently wanted to put a stop to such.

Still doesn't change the impression that BP puts forward that it is OFSC rather than MTO Policy.  After all, we have been selling permits for a long time, even before bill 101.  The damage done to community relations with our resellers is still increasing as the years unfold and the clubs have less 'excuse' to talk to their vendors for support.

JMO

[02Sled]

9 minutes ago, sledjunk said:

Still doesn't change the impression that BP puts forward that it is OFSC rather than MTO Policy.  After all, we have been selling permits for a long time, even before bill 101.  The damage done to community relations with our resellers is still increasing as the years unfold and the clubs have less 'excuse' to talk to their vendors for support.

JMO

It was if I recall correctly the MTO that insisted on capturing complete information and adherence to the dates regarding pricing and that the only way for the MTO to achieve that was for them to mandate online only. As for the OFSC holding an inventory of permits that is still the same. The OFSC has accountability for the permits (aka inventory)The only difference now is that they would give care and custody to the 3rd party processor of those permits for the fulfillment process. The 3rd party would much the same as the clubs did have to provide a reconciliation of permits versus sales however now with the online only that reconciliation would be much easier to do. i.e here is the timestamp down to the fraction of a second as to when each permit and what type it was is actually sold.

 

I haven't had to deal with this in quite some time and I'm not sure if / how it has changed and that is who manages the replacement permit when such things as your windshield breaks and you need a replacement permit. Really not sure on this one but I believe the replacement may be handled through the district office with them holding a small inventory. Perhaps someone knows for sure that process. I don't.

 

I know replacements for permits ordered but not received were handled through the 3rd party.

[bbakernbay]

Forget about selling them on trail then, just get the MSVA amended to a

allow Trail Patrol to initiate notice of infraction similar to No Parking or better still the Red Light Camera infractions that goes against the Vehicle Owner.

 

This eliminates all the bullshit involved in trying to identify driver.

[Big Pete]

02Sled, with all due respect that is the propaganda the BoG wants you to believe. If the MTO is insisting on complete (and I assume accurate) data capture then why does the on-line system allow anybody to purchase a permit in any name and put in absolutely any sled info they want. The PTS system the club used to input required the same minimal data input that the on-line system requires or there is no improvemment in data integrity.  If MTO wanted all these changes then why are they not part of the contract that was just signed?  Instead you have a contract that explicitly states that clubs (and other 3rd party sellers like dealers) can hold inventory subject to the terms and conditions. If the MTO wanted the changes, don't you think they would have insisted on the new processes in the new contract. Here is an excerpt from the section of the contract regarding the Federations' Responsibilities

 

 

 

 

As to the financial controls, every club had to reconcile each and every permit they were issued. Sold, Replacements, Lost/Stolen- it do not matter. And as far as I was concerned as my club permit administrator if it was not accounted for properly it was considered a sold permit and the club ate it. Did not every club get held to the same standard? I have to assume yes. If they (OFSC) were aware of problems, what did they do about it? In reality, nothing of any consequence. 

 

As for replacement permits, a permit holder must complete a Replacement Application form and provide the appropriate documentation (scan copy of old permit or Police Report or Sworn Affidavit) to the OFSC. The OFSC will verify the documents collect the fees and issue the replacement. To the best of my knowledge neither the 3rd Party Fulfillment House nor the District Office  is involved with replacement permits.

[Big Pete]

10 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

Forget about selling them on trail then, just get the MSVA amended to a

allow Trail Patrol to initiate notice of infraction similar to No Parking or better still the Red Light Camera infractions that goes against the Vehicle Owner.

 

This eliminates all the bullshit involved in trying to identify driver.

Brian, As I read Section 24 of the MSVA, the owner can be charged.

 

24. The owner of a motorized snow vehicle may be charged with and convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or any municipal by-law regulating, governing or prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles, for which the driver of the motorized snow vehicle is subject to be charged unless, at the time of the offence, the motorized snow vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and on conviction the owner is liable to the penalty prescribed for the offence. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 24.

[Big Pussy]

I would think that if the MTO wanted control of the trail pass sales, we would all be standing in line at the license, registration, health card renewal office.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

BP

[Big Pete]

4 minutes ago, Big Pussy said:

I would think that if the MTO wanted control of the trail pass sales, we would all be standing in line at the license, registration, health card renewal office.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

BP

Agreed. So who’s left?

[bbakernbay]

21 hours ago, Big Pete said:

Brian, As I read Section 24 of the MSVA, the owner can be charged.

 

24. The owner of a motorized snow vehicle may be charged with and convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or any municipal by-law regulating, governing or prohibiting the operation of motorized snow vehicles, for which the driver of the motorized snow vehicle is subject to be charged unless, at the time of the offence, the motorized snow vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and on conviction the owner is liable to the penalty prescribed for the offence. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 24.

Big Pete, that may provide somewhat of a solution but our local OPP officer who is very experienced with snowmobile patrol said he will not lay charges based upon Trail Patrollers evidence unless they can specifically identify the accused person in a courtroom.  In our case we had photos, 2 Trail Patrollers willing to testify but since the two offenders did not remove their helmets we were SOL.

 

This incident bugs me years later as these 2 guys had the best of sleds and gear and had the gall to say they didn’t know they were on OFSC trails even though the signs were 50’ away AND our Groomer and Drag was stopped at a major intersection.

 

Believe me, Freeloading is getting worse and enforcement is declining and the Ontario Government is doing nothing to help.  ETR407 doesn’t allow Freeloading, we shouldn’t either and Quebec doesn’t either.

[zoso]

6 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Big Pete, that may provide somewhat of a solution but our local OPP officer who is very experienced with snowmobile patrol said he will not lay charges based upon Trail Patrollers evidence unless they can specifically identify the accused person in a courtroom.  In our case we had photos, 2 Trail Patrollers willing to testify but since the two offenders did not remove their helmets we were SOL.

 

This incident bugs me years later as these 2 guys had the best of sleds and gear and had the gall to say they didn’t know they were on OFSC trails even though the signs were 50’ away AND our Groomer and Drag was stopped at a major intersection.

 

Believe me, Freeloading is getting worse and enforcement is declining and the Ontario Government is doing nothing to help.  ETR407 doesn’t allow Freeloading, we shouldn’t either and Quebec doesn’t either.

Fine for trespass on ofsc trail needs to be a unique charge and  not tied to trespass to property act. In the same change we need to see trail patrol given authority to lay the fine on the sled owner( via reg numbers) with that fine being a min. of $1000.00 and  increasing fines for subsequent offences. It would not take long for the freeloaders to stop.