Jump to content

North Bay Parry Sound Health Unit ordering area OFSC trails closed


Giddy UP

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Big Pete said:

 

Here is a link to the Set Fines for each Act in Ontario. IIRC you would need to add the Victims Surcharge to the fine listed to get to your out of pocket cost. 

 

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do-i/set-fines/set-fines-i/

 

So seems to be either $85 or $200, plus the surcharge of course......I am not seeing an infraction for trespassing or driving on a closed trail though, I am sure it is there, just not seeing it.

Even a whole section on groomer and drags infractions - go figure :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zoso said:

public roads are just that, public. It is not crown land, and you cannot get an lup on a road. A public roadway even if not maintained is free to access by all at any time. Our govenor at the time was furious, but it is what it is. The road in question at the time is one of the most popular loops in the province. A designated trail is not a prescribed trail, a prescribed trail gives exclusive use to the ofsc except the exemptions as outlined in the msva.  Public roads may not be taken over by anyone for exclusive use.  we have had trails on roads that were seasonal, and a cottage owner decided to plow the groomed trail that was on that road, guess what, the tgrail was relocated because we could not do a thing about it.

Definitions 

1. (1) For the purpose of section 2.1 of the Act and this Regulation, 

“prescribed trail” means a trail or part of a trail on which a trail permit is required by section 2.1 of the Act and that is operated or maintained by or on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, and includes such a trail or part of a trail that is on Crown land or other public land, but excludes any Crown land or other public land where the operation of motorized snow vehicles is prohibited by law.  O. Reg. 185/01, s. 1 (1).
 

The OFSC trails don’t claim exclusive use as your Club and others have been advised but almost every Club in District 11 has prescribed OFSC Trails on certain public roadways including Forest Access Roads.

 

Where does it say an OFSC prescribed trail gives exclusive use for snowmobiles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zoso said:

public roads are just that, public. It is not crown land, and you cannot get an lup on a road. A public roadway even if not maintained is free to access by all at any time. Our govenor at the time was furious, but it is what it is. The road in question at the time is one of the most popular loops in the province. A designated trail is not a prescribed trail, a prescribed trail gives exclusive use to the ofsc except the exemptions as outlined in the msva.  Public roads may not be taken over by anyone for exclusive use.  we have had trails on roads that were seasonal, and a cottage owner decided to plow the groomed trail that was on that road, guess what, the tgrail was relocated because we could not do a thing about it.

I don’t believe the act says what you claim. A prescribed trail does not provide exclusive access to the land. A “prescribed trail requires a motorized snow vehicle to have a valid permit” .  The land use agreement provides the limitations on who can be on the land.  Some are exclusive. Some are not.  So if a prescribed trail is located on land that has a non exclusive land use agreement, any snowmobile ( subject to the permitted exclusions) must have a valid permit even if the prescribed trail is on crown land.  Since an atv is not covered under the MSVA, they would not require a valid permit. The type of land ( private vs public) is a separate issue and the land use is governed by whatever agreement is struck.  For private land, the standard land use agreement preferred by the OFSC provides for exclusive use. That is the primary reason the federation is able to obtain liability insurance. There are also many multi-use agreements in place but that is where the liability insurance gets tricky.  The last time I read the various acts regarding public property, the MNR is able to grant exclusive land use agreements. However the fact of the matter is do not grant these exclusive use agreements anymore as a matter of internal policy. Why the non exclusive policy is in place would be a question for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests.  Maybe the OFSC could get the ministers from MNRF, MTO and Tourism/Recreation/Sport at the same table and come to some arrangements that work for everybody, snowmobilers, ATVers, campers, other outdoor enthusiasts included.  It’s a big province. Surely there is enough room for everybody. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stoney said:

So that means the fine would in fact be $65 for trespassing on closed OFSC trails vs $880 as posted. 
Perhaps misunderstanding or a stretch to deter people from doing it as $65 is hardly a deterrent. 

 

True but I think the fine comes to $880 because it goes against Covid rules.

Last week if someone sledded on a closed trail in PS or NB and somehow got caught it would be $180, now after they decided to shutdown PS and NB trails due to Covid that same guy would be getting a $880 fine if he was riding in PS or NB:wtf:

Edited by WinderFab
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Big Pete said:

I don’t believe the act says what you claim. A prescribed trail does not provide exclusive access to the land. A “prescribed trail requires a motorized snow vehicle to have a valid permit” .  The land use agreement provides the limitations on who can be on the land.  Some are exclusive. Some are not.  So if a prescribed trail is located on land that has a non exclusive land use agreement, any snowmobile ( subject to the permitted exclusions) must have a valid permit even if the prescribed trail is on crown land.  Since an atv is not covered under the MSVA, they would not require a valid permit. The type of land ( private vs public) is a separate issue and the land use is governed by whatever agreement is struck.  For private land, the standard land use agreement preferred by the OFSC provides for exclusive use. That is the primary reason the federation is able to obtain liability insurance. There are also many multi-use agreements in place but that is where the liability insurance gets tricky.  The last time I read the various acts regarding public property, the MNR is able to grant exclusive land use agreements. However the fact of the matter is do not grant these exclusive use agreements anymore as a matter of internal policy. Why the non exclusive policy is in place would be a question for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests.  Maybe the OFSC could get the ministers from MNRF, MTO and Tourism/Recreation/Sport at the same table and come to some arrangements that work for everybody, snowmobilers, ATVers, campers, other outdoor enthusiasts included.  It’s a big province. Surely there is enough room for everybody. 

I am talking about roads used by the ofsc. You cannot have a trail on a road. You can groom an seasonal road, sign it and use it as a sled trail, however if a resident wanted to use it, or any other person for that matter, it is a road and can be used, even plowed and used by a car. The minister of natural resources does not have that mandate, it is the mandate of the minister of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Municipality can close the road and then it can become a trail.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zoso said:

I am talking about roads used by the ofsc. You cannot have a trail on a road. You can groom an seasonal road, sign it and use it as a sled trail, however if a resident wanted to use it, or any other person for that matter, it is a road and can be used, even plowed and used by a car. The minister of natural resources does not have that mandate, it is the mandate of the minister of transportation.

If somebody plowed it, privately, would that make them liable for any accidents that happened from said plowing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zoso said:

I suppoise tbhey could, but why would they do so? 

We asked about. Highly unlikely because it is ultimately public property. We only were able to get limited results due to wetland and road destruction by 4x4's and ATV's. The atv clubs members destroy the trail and offer nothing in the way of money or equipment to fix it.

We start the season trying to fill 2 foot deep ruts. and mud holes.

It's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zoso said:

I suppoise tbhey could, but why would they do so? 

You said previously "a Prescribed Trail gives exclusive use to the OFSC except the exemptions as outlined in the MSVA"

 

Where does it actually state that exclusive use?

 

It certainly doesn't state that in the definition of a Prescribed Trail only that a Trail Permit is required. It does say "but excludes any Crown Land or other public land where the operation of motorized snow vehicles is prohibited by law." which obviously makes sense.

 

This in fact gives strength to my argument that joint use is permitted unless the Crown/Public Land Agency specifically prohibits snowmobiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, zoso said:

I suppoise tbhey could, but why would they do so? 

A lot of cottage roads are "closed" in the winter so they dont have to provide maintenance.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottyr said:

A lot of cottage roads are "closed" in the winter so they dont have to provide maintenance.  

 

 

Unfortunately more and more of these summer maintenance roads are being plowed and we are losing good trails because of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RAMSOMAIR said:

Unfortunately more and more of these summer maintenance roads are being plowed and we are losing good trails because of it

 Yes,  this is true....as more cottages are built on land that was bought year ago and they want to access their place all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RAMSOMAIR said:

Unfortunately more and more of these summer maintenance roads are being plowed and we are losing good trails because of it

 

3 hours ago, stoney said:

 Yes,  this is true....as more cottages are built on land that was bought year ago and they want to access their place all year.

What is the legality if it's a township road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, revrnd said:

 

What is the legality if it's a township road?

Honestly, don’t know, but I’m sure if you put up enough of a stink, anything is possible. 
As a tax payer, I can see how some will have sense of entitlement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that if it's not the township that's plowing to road the person that is had better have a s#^|& load of insurance.

 

If it's not the township, whats stopping the club from grooming the snow right back onto the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stoney said:

Honestly, don’t know, but I’m sure if you put up enough of a stink, anything is possible. 
As a tax payer, I can see how some will have sense of entitlement. 

The problem is that some of these places, the taxes are ridiculously low, counting on not having to winter maintain the roadway. Once the owners start demanding maintenance, they better be ready to cough up more property tax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zertrider said:

The problem is that some of these places, the taxes are ridiculously low, counting on not having to winter maintain the roadway. Once the owners start demanding maintenance, they better be ready to cough up more property tax

The places that I have seen built where this has become a discussion regarding f/t access, I am thinking money is not a concern, or at least should not be :)

 

But I agree, getting your winter cottage road now maintained year round has a price tag associated with it and should not be a surprise.

I know other cottage roads that are trails as well that get snow plowed I believe by the cottage association, so it can be used by both sleds and some vehicles.......happy compromise I am sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zertrider said:

The problem is that some of these places, the taxes are ridiculously low, counting on not having to winter maintain the roadway. Once the owners start demanding maintenance, they better be ready to cough up more property tax

When a municipality formally accepts a particular roadway or section of roadway for either year around maintenance or only non-winter maintenance then the cost associated with that work is spread amongst the entire tax base in the municipality based upon assessment and tax rates, etc.  Same thing applies to improvement work, etc.

 

If a municipality were to accept a road for year around maintenance when it was previously only summer only, then the entire municipal tax base assumes the cost.  There is no provision to bill the newly added property owners separately.

 

Once this is done then the Assessment for those properties would very likely increase and those property owners would see their tax bills eventually increase but not directly as the result of the additional cost of providing winter maintenance on that section of roadway now assumed for winter maintenance but rather the value of their property is assumed to be then greater than it was previously.

 

In some circumstances the municipality could enter into a separate contract with the owners of a non-winter maintained roadway if they chose to do that but that is certainly not recommended practice in my 30+ years of municipal engineering experience.  This easily leads to a court case wherein the property owners years after contest that the municipality has “assumed” the road section in question and then the battle begins as occurred in North Bay just prior to me starting employment there after working for DHO.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our township (McDougall) we had to ask for permission from the town to plow our only summer maintained road.  The road connects to the trail but is not part of it.  Works out great for the 4 properties that use it.  We also plow an extra parking area for property owners further down the road to park there trucks and trailers.  Win win for all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kicker said:

In our township (McDougall) we had to ask for permission from the town to plow our only summer maintained road.  The road connects to the trail but is not part of it.  Works out great for the 4 properties that use it.  We also plow an extra parking area for property owners further down the road to park there trucks and trailers.  Win win for all.

Did the Township require anything from your group in writing or was it just a verbal okay to go ahead. Did you make a formal request to Council and they approve it by Resolution.

 

I wouldn’t expect anything in writing but just wandering.

 

Great solution for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Did the Township require anything from your group in writing or was it just a verbal okay to go ahead. Did you make a formal request to Council and they approve it by Resolution.

 

I wouldn’t expect anything in writing but just wandering.

 

Great solution for everyone.

This was set up 15 or more years ago and don't remember all the details.  As I remember, it was just a request made over the phone and a few days later they granted permission.  The only stipulation was that we had to use a bonified snow removal company.  We have not heard from the town since its been set up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • revrnd locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...