2026 Ontario season

[Strong Farmer]

17 minutes ago, signfan said:

To see the math you join a club and then ask for the Ofsc’s audited financial statements.   They are produced and provided to the clubs annually.  The Ofsc is controlled by its membership in a democratic fashion.  The members are the clubs.  When I was running a club we saw a report once a year prior to convention.

Around here that was never shared at club level to my knowledge. I never seen it anyways. I think districts or grooming associations at that time kept info to themselves. Who ever was invited to those higher up meetings would get knowledge not regular Joe attending a club trail meeting. 

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

4 hours ago, Strong Farmer said:

Around here that was never shared at club level to my knowledge. I never seen it anyways. I think districts or grooming associations at that time kept info to themselves. Who ever was invited to those higher up meetings would get knowledge not regular Joe attending a club trail meeting. 

I can guarantee you that the St. Clements club and the GTSA always shared any and all information received from the OFSC. Of course you woulld have to go to club meetings or be on the executive to hear the info. and we know you seldom if ever did that!

[signfan]

4 hours ago, Spiderman said:

Just to understand, the members (clubs), said let’s cut 20% of our trails then, is that correct?.

 

 

No they elected a governor through a democratic process that represents them on the Ofsc board of governors.  They can provide feedback to that governor on an ongoing basis and if they desire vote him or her out.  They also had the option to attend agm and other provincial meetings to provide input and direction to the provincial association.  If every club voted against this idea at agm it would die.  That said the funding issue would not go away.
 

With a centralized funding model there is responsibility and oversight that lands at the head office level.  Prior to this each club managed their own budget be that good or bad.  It definitely was less consistent across the board and arguably less efficient.  
 

Agree or disagree with the cutting of trails what this all comes back to is the organization living within its means.  Do we want to see a scenario where grooming stops province wide in the middle of February because the funds are depleted?  That would be a much worse S?$t storm than this planned control of expenditures.  My question is will the trail cuts lead to the needed savings or not.  Ofsc pays each club so much per km of trail for general maintenance.  So that number does drop for every km cut.  Maybe there is an insurance premium drop as well if they go to the insurer and say we now have x km of trails vs the previous number.  That should equate to less risk from an insurance perspective.  Where it’s less clear is if all the crap trail (call it third tier) that only goes into Billy bobs hunt camp and only gets groomed every 2nd week is what is being cut is there really a  major grooming operational savings or not vs the A trail that gets groomed 3 and 4 times a week.  Time will tell.

 

I’m by no means in the know, but sounds like some districts have been tasked with larger cuts percentage wise than others.  Probably based on who co-operated with past trail rationalization exercises and who didn’t.  Maybe traffic patterns played into this too.  Will be interesting to see a map to understand what this looks like.  It does sound like many districts are working through this exercise in a collaborative approach and although it is a provincially directed exercise many of the final decisions on what stays and goes are still happening at the local level where they should be.  I suspect it won’t be as bad as many think.  Question will be what happens in future years if this round isn’t enough to balance the books.  Hopefully it is.  Hopefully we have a normal winter with decent conditions to drive interest in the sport and maybe the permit prices get bumped again next year to get things on more of a sustainable path forward.

[T bird]

On 9/25/2025 at 8:49 AM, mach Z said:

If I think about it. I havent been on a night ride in years.  The trails are so good you can bang off 150- 250 km in Muskoka in a day and by that time your back before night. 

 

Just saying how things have changed

 

Muskoka, is like that. Takes all day at times, but good lord do some of those side trails kick ass!… generally my go too when in that area!.. let the donkeys beat the crap out of the main link

[Strong Farmer]

5 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

I can guarantee you that the St. Clements club and the GTSA always shared any and all information received from the OFSC. Of course you woulld have to go to club meetings or be on the executive to hear the info. and we know you seldom if ever did that!

I went to about 20 meetings over a period of 3 or so years, never came up once. Not once. Let me know date , place and time of meeting that this info will be discussed and I be there. Thank-you! 

[Sksman]

Signfan raised some good points.

If a dead end trail or a trail that has officially been open in a few years is cut is it really a cut for the trail funding budget?

 

If you take a hypothetical 20km trail that requires considerable snow and multiple groomer passes to open over rough unforgiving terrain that beats up operator and groomer what is the true cost on the groomer and trail system in parts, repairs, maintenance vs a 20km trail that is down a unassumed road or farm field?

 

Quite possibly the trails that were struggled to be open and took a lot of hours bore a proportionally higher cost to open so these costs will be saved.

 

I would think it’s very easy to base anger of trails closing on looking at an average cost / km of grooming as if every km of trail for a clubs whole system costs the same /km as that is the easy math to calculate and not put a fair number of $$ saving on not opening a difficult terrain trail.

[Strong Farmer]

8 minutes ago, Sksman said:

Signfan raised some good points.

If a dead end trail or a trail that has officially been open in a few years is cut is it really a cut for the trail funding budget?

 

If you take a hypothetical 20km trail that requires considerable snow and multiple groomer passes to open over rough unforgiving terrain that beats up operator and groomer what is the true cost on the groomer and trail system in parts, repairs, maintenance vs a 20km trail that is down a unassumed road or farm field?

 

Quite possibly the trails that were struggled to be open and took a lot of hours bore a proportionally higher cost to open so these costs will be saved.

 

I would think it’s very easy to base anger of trails closing on looking at an average cost / km of grooming as if every km of trail for a clubs whole system costs the same /km as that is the easy math to calculate and not put a fair number of $$ saving on not opening a difficult terrain trail.

Hailburton said they had to close approximately 42,kms of trail in thier area. They are closing b112 from west side of Minden up past highway 118 into B. So now only way Is old trail 4 bobcaygen road basically is becoming new top trail b112. Allot of upset people because they be no way to avoid road run from Minden north now. Fun loop is gone have to use road run both ways. Another reason to not start south of Halliburton now. 

[Sksman]

4 hours ago, Strong Farmer said:

Hailburton said they had to close approximately 42,kms of trail in thier area. They are closing b112 from west side of Minden up past highway 118 into B. So now only way Is old trail 4 bobcaygen road basically is becoming new top trail b112. Allot of upset people because they be no way to avoid road run from Minden north now. Fun loop is gone have to use road run both ways. Another reason to not start south of Halliburton now. 

But that trail they said was tough to open and maintain.  That is costly to keep open.

 

 

 

[Strong Farmer]

1 hour ago, Sksman said:

But that trail they said was tough to open and maintain.  That is costly to keep open.

 

 

 

Never put allot of effort into it, since it by passes Haliburton. In a good snow year it was a good trail.  It was a good loop to do when available. Whole area is rugged and hard to open to a certain degree, except rail trail  of course. 

[Spiderman]

On 9/27/2025 at 8:17 PM, signfan said:

No they elected a governor through a democratic process that represents them on the Ofsc board of governors.  They can provide feedback to that governor on an ongoing basis and if they desire vote him or her out.  They also had the option to attend agm and other provincial meetings to provide input and direction to the provincial association.  If every club voted against this idea at agm it would die.  That said the funding issue would not go away.
 

With a centralized funding model there is responsibility and oversight that lands at the head office level.  Prior to this each club managed their own budget be that good or bad.  It definitely was less consistent across the board and arguably less efficient.  
 

Agree or disagree with the cutting of trails what this all comes back to is the organization living within its means.  Do we want to see a scenario where grooming stops province wide in the middle of February because the funds are depleted?  That would be a much worse S?$t storm than this planned control of expenditures.  My question is will the trail cuts lead to the needed savings or not.  Ofsc pays each club so much per km of trail for general maintenance.  So that number does drop for every km cut.  Maybe there is an insurance premium drop as well if they go to the insurer and say we now have x km of trails vs the previous number.  That should equate to less risk from an insurance perspective.  Where it’s less clear is if all the crap trail (call it third tier) that only goes into Billy bobs hunt camp and only gets groomed every 2nd week is what is being cut is there really a  major grooming operational savings or not vs the A trail that gets groomed 3 and 4 times a week.  Time will tell.

 

I’m by no means in the know, but sounds like some districts have been tasked with larger cuts percentage wise than others.  Probably based on who co-operated with past trail rationalization exercises and who didn’t.  Maybe traffic patterns played into this too.  Will be interesting to see a map to understand what this looks like.  It does sound like many districts are working through this exercise in a collaborative approach and although it is a provincially directed exercise many of the final decisions on what stays and goes are still happening at the local level where they should be.  I suspect it won’t be as bad as many think.  Question will be what happens in future years if this round isn’t enough to balance the books.  Hopefully it is.  Hopefully we have a normal winter with decent conditions to drive interest in the sport and maybe the permit prices get bumped again next year to get things on more of a sustainable path forward.

I appreciate the detailed response.

 

I guess just a couple of things come to mind - which I am sure were thoroughly discussed, but us not in the know, really never hear anything that is going on.

 

On the 1st bold - was this the only idea brought forward? Was there discussion about other ideas?

 

On the 2nd bold - are clubs prohibited from fund raising their own resources to put fuel into the groomers and keep things going? Is there anything to prohibit - say a local to give a $2,000.00 donation to fuel for groomers? Are clubs permitted to do such things? Just curious - because although I agree that the distribution method in place is much improved, does it leave room for clubs to still manage and generate their own resources should that shortfall occur? 

 

On the 3rd bold - the answer is no. And that is part of the problem with this solution. If the mandate was to look to cut secondary trails, trails hardly used, those are also trails that barely get anything put into them - so in operations cost, yes, it will save, how much, very little - but to your other point - if reducing the overall # of km's is an insurance savings - I sure as heck would want to know EXACTLY how much, and for how long we can expect that, before I go and close trails and I'm likely never to get back. 

 

Lastly, I said it before, and just to repeat it again, I personally do not agree with the approach and it's left me on the fence whether to purchase a pass ( or a few ) again. Those trails will 99% never re-open. The bigger issue I see is that there has been no report of a bigger and/or future plan here. It's all closures this year - but what's next. What is the plan moving forward. Is there even have one? Is it shoot from the hip every year? close more and more till there is nothing left?

 

The more you close - the more riders you're going to lose. They will go hand in hand and if you can't see that - I can't help you.

 

Anyway, no easy solution, that is certain.

Biggest thing that will improve things is more buts in seats and people out riding. Where those come from? I don't know, but I look around, and I don't see it.....

 

I can assure you the more you close, the less accessible the trails become, and the more you limit yourselves to TOPS only, people will be less interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spiderman]

https://intrepidsnowmobiler.com/comparing-snowmobiling-in-ontario-quebec-new-brunswick/

[Mach Z]

7 minutes ago, Spiderman said:

https://intrepidsnowmobiler.com/comparing-snowmobiling-in-ontario-quebec-new-brunswick/

 

 

all i need to see

[Sksman]

15 minutes ago, Spiderman said:

I appreciate the detailed response.

 

I guess just a couple of things come to mind - which I am sure were thoroughly discussed, but us not in the know, really never hear anything that is going on.

 

On the 1st bold - was this the only idea brought forward? Was there discussion about other ideas?

 

On the 2nd bold - are clubs prohibited from fund raising their own resources to put fuel into the groomers and keep things going? Is there anything to prohibit - say a local to give a $2,000.00 donation to fuel for groomers? Are clubs permitted to do such things? Just curious - because although I agree that the distribution method in place is much improved, does it leave room for clubs to still manage and generate their own resources should that shortfall occur? 

 

On the 3rd bold - the answer is no. And that is part of the problem with this solution. If the mandate was to look to cut secondary trails, trails hardly used, those are also trails that barely get anything put into them - so in operations cost, yes, it will save, how much, very little - but to your other point - if reducing the overall # of km's is an insurance savings - I sure as heck would want to know EXACTLY how much, and for how long we can expect that, before I go and close trails and I'm likely never to get back. 

 

Lastly, I said it before, and just to repeat it again, I personally do not agree with the approach and it's left me on the fence whether to purchase a pass ( or a few ) again. Those trails will 99% never re-open. The bigger issue I see is that there has been no report of a bigger and/or future plan here. It's all closures this year - but what's next. What is the plan moving forward. Is there even have one? Is it shoot from the hip every year? close more and more till there is nothing left?

 

The more you close - the more riders you're going to lose. They will go hand in hand and if you can't see that - I can't help you.

 

Anyway, no easy solution, that is certain.

Biggest thing that will improve things is more buts in seats and people out riding. Where those come from? I don't know, but I look around, and I don't see it.....

 

I can assure you the more you close, the less accessible the trails become, and the more you limit yourselves to TOPS only, people will be less interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You raise a good point or two.

 

I doubt anyone would complain if the local fuel supplier showed up and pumped 1,000gallons of diesel into club tanks.  Or an extra 500 gallons  
 

But does that really accomplish anything overall for the sport in Ontario if it only happens at one club?   
 

How about asking permit buyers for corporate donations in way of parts credits at suppliers?  Not sure how legal for accounting but I know of a number of owners of large construction companies and many of them are sledders.   if they could write it off might make a difference.
 

Or a donation link for permit buyers to donate to groomer fund or fuel fund when purchasing permits?

 

How many guys on here would throw an extra $50 or 100 at a donation right to the expenses of the clubs? 
 

 

 

[Spiderman]

7 minutes ago, Sksman said:

You raise a good point or two.

 

I doubt anyone would complain if the local fuel supplier showed up and pumped 1,000gallons of diesel into club tanks.  Or an extra 500 gallons  
 

But does that really accomplish anything overall for the sport in Ontario if it only happens at one club?   
 

How about asking permit buyers for corporate donations in way of parts credits at suppliers?  Not sure how legal for accounting but I know of a number of owners of large construction companies and many of them are sledders.   if they could write it off might make a difference.
 

Or a donation link for permit buyers to donate to groomer fund or fuel fund when purchasing permits?

 

How many guys on here would throw an extra $50 or 100 at a donation right to the expenses of the clubs? 
 

 

 

 

Well, that's what the OFSC is for. They do their part - and the clubs get what they get from them. 

But what is the hurt if the club can take it upon themselves to help themselves if they so choose to?

In my view, you have to be able to look at it through both lenses. 

The OFSC is there to oversee the province etc. - that's their role. The clubs are responsible for what they are responsible for. The clubs largest responsibility is NOT to the province of Ontario, it's to their assigned club trails and users. If they can raise funds, increase their own grooming above and beyond what they get, what's the issue? That's just a great club doing great work.

 

Like you, I'm not an accountant or familiar with the tax laws etc. - but you make a good suggestion re: the donation link etc. if that is allowed.

 

On that note though, I will say this.

 

Any donation I personally would make or be willing to make - goes directly to the local club. I would rather put it directly into the hand of where I want to see it put to use - the club. That's just me.

 

 

[Mach Z]

I can see it going this way. The OFSC will only pay for main trails and small feeder ones will be looked after by the clubs

 

 

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

33 minutes ago, Sksman said:

I doubt anyone would complain if the local fuel supplier showed up and pumped 1,000gallons of diesel into club tanks

I may be mistaken but in our region, I believe the clubs do not own any tanks or equipment. The District pays for virtually all approved trail expenses as well as fuel/tanks (if owned) and all approved groomer repairs. The OFSC owns the groomer tractors and drags and they are administered through the District. I would think this would be the same in all the districts in Ontario.

[Spiderman]

19 minutes ago, mach Z said:

I can see it going this way. The OFSC will only pay for main trails and small feeder ones will be looked after by the clubs

 

 

 

That would go against their blanket risk management and interactive trail map guidelines

[Spiderman]

1 minute ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

I may be mistaken but in our region, I believe the clubs do not own any tanks or equipment. The District pays for virtually all approved trail expenses as well as fuel/tanks (if owned) and all approved groomer repairs. The OFSC owns the groomer tractors and drags and they are administered through the District. I would think this would be the same in all the districts in Ontario.

 

So, do the clubs own anything anymore?

Have the OFSC become the Hells Angels lol

 

[Mach Z]

8 minutes ago, Spiderman said:

 

That would go against their blanket risk management and interactive trail map guidelines

agreed but the system has to change. Like you said there seems to be no long term plan or even a plan for next year.

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

2 hours ago, Spiderman said:

 

So, do the clubs own anything anymore?

Have the OFSC become the Hells Angels lol

 

Possibly a clubhouse (and contents), warmup shack, atv or utv and some trail maintenace tools are items that come to mind although often the warm up shacks (in the south at least) are owned by the property owner. Trail maintenance tools, machines & ATV's are very often personal property of volunteers.

[Nutter]

23 hours ago, Strong Farmer said:

Hailburton said they had to close approximately 42,kms of trail in thier area. They are closing b112 from west side of Minden up past highway 118 into B. So now only way Is old trail 4 bobcaygen road basically is becoming new top trail b112. Allot of upset people because they be no way to avoid road run from Minden north now. Fun loop is gone have to use road run both ways. Another reason to not start south of Halliburton now. 

 

 

They haven't been able to open the B112 from Minden up to the B trail in over 7-8 years, before that it was also very hit and miss. Again last year 3-5 days trying to open it with no success, huge waste of groomer and operator hours. This has been going on for years. Good riddance to that trail, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone as you say upset over it closing for good. The new route using trail #4 uses Bobcaygeon Rd for maybe 200ft, which I think they have a go around for.  The road run sections with no groomed ditch trail are on Horseshoe Lake Rd.   

[Nutter]

4 hours ago, Spiderman said:

 

So, do the clubs own anything anymore?

Have the OFSC become the Hells Angels lol

 

 

 

Everything bought with permit $$ belongs to the Province via the MTO. The OFSC owns nothing. If clubs can prove ownership of clubhouses/groomer sheds, equip and what not 100% through outside fundraising it's there's. 

[Spiderman]

20 minutes ago, Nutter said:

 

 

They haven't been able to open the B112 from Minden up to the B trail in over 7-8 years, before that it was also very hit and miss. Again last year 3-5 days trying to open it with no success, huge waste of groomer and operator hours. This has been going on for years. Good riddance to that trail, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone as you say upset over it closing for good. The new route using trail #4 uses Bobcaygeon Rd for maybe 200ft, which I think they have a go around for.  The road run sections with no groomed ditch trail are on Horseshoe Lake Rd.   

 

Will be nice when the map goes live and everyone can see what is available and what won't be ( for a variety of reasons ).

I think that will help settle things down too.

 

[Nutter]

1 minute ago, Spiderman said:

 

Will be nice when the map goes live and everyone can see what is available and what won't be ( for a variety of reasons ).

I think that will help settle things down too.

 

 

 

Will settle things down for some, will also really piss a lot of people off that are loosing vital connections from homes/cottages, towns and services. I think it'll also become the excuse flavor of the season for cheap asses that don't buy permits. Worst of all possibly the final straw for some volunteers to toss the shovel and say screw it I'm out.   

 

The map should already be live for this purpose this season, and the OFSC should have already put out a proper public statement. The clubs have been left taking all the social media heat and permits go on sale in less than 48 hours. Massive fail in the communications department ....... actually massive fail all around lol 

[signfan]

5 hours ago, Spiderman said:

I appreciate the detailed response.

 

I guess just a couple of things come to mind - which I am sure were thoroughly discussed, but us not in the know, really never hear anything that is going on.

 

On the 1st bold - was this the only idea brought forward? Was there discussion about other ideas?

 

On the 2nd bold - are clubs prohibited from fund raising their own resources to put fuel into the groomers and keep things going? Is there anything to prohibit - say a local to give a $2,000.00 donation to fuel for groomers? Are clubs permitted to do such things? Just curious - because although I agree that the distribution method in place is much improved, does it leave room for clubs to still manage and generate their own resources should that shortfall occur? 

 

On the 3rd bold - the answer is no. And that is part of the problem with this solution. If the mandate was to look to cut secondary trails, trails hardly used, those are also trails that barely get anything put into them - so in operations cost, yes, it will save, how much, very little - but to your other point - if reducing the overall # of km's is an insurance savings - I sure as heck would want to know EXACTLY how much, and for how long we can expect that, before I go and close trails and I'm likely never to get back. 

 

Lastly, I said it before, and just to repeat it again, I personally do not agree with the approach and it's left me on the fence whether to purchase a pass ( or a few ) again. Those trails will 99% never re-open. The bigger issue I see is that there has been no report of a bigger and/or future plan here. It's all closures this year - but what's next. What is the plan moving forward. Is there even have one? Is it shoot from the hip every year? close more and more till there is nothing left?

 

The more you close - the more riders you're going to lose. They will go hand in hand and if you can't see that - I can't help you.

 

Anyway, no easy solution, that is certain.

Biggest thing that will improve things is more buts in seats and people out riding. Where those come from? I don't know, but I look around, and I don't see it.....

 

I can assure you the more you close, the less accessible the trails become, and the more you limit yourselves to TOPS only, people will be less interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear I’m no longer involved.  I spent the better part of a decade running a club, the groomer and everything in between.  But currently am focused on family and hope to return to the organization when my hairs a touch greyer.  For now I sit in the cheap seats.
 

I wasn’t at agm this past month so can’t say what was discussed.  I think it’s safe to say the need to rationalize and cut trail came from head office.  Not the other way around.  The idea obviously wasn’t tabelled and voted down, but I’m sure was discussed.

 

No the clubs are free to do their own fundraising and many do.  They can track and manage these funds separately.  They are limited by federal and provincial statues only in regards to the operation of not for profit corporations.  That said many clubs eliminated their incorporated status in lieu of a chapter system to eliminate costs and paperwork.  So in those instances the district manages their fundraising funds.  There is examples of many clubs that do very well with fundraising to help their club.  Whether many can afford to supplement operations is another story.  I think insurance costs and capital equipment costs would play a big factor in that discussion with OFSC.  OFSC has stricter restrictions on what trail permit funds can and cannot be spent on.  Clubs have to folllow these rules when spending permit money which in general is a good thing.

 

As some have said seeing a map of this years system would be very beneficial.  Even if it was just a PDF version.  Like many things in life 80 -20 rule probably applies.  80% of the rides folks do will occur on 20% of the trails.  Not in anyway saying the cuts are good.  Lots of club trails I love to ride.  But if we have a sustainable system then that’s what’s most important.  Not buying a permit and getting out of the sport won’t solve anything in my view.

 

Nutter I agree Ofsc needs some help in the communications department.  Better to deliver bad news then to let it sit and simmer with no comments.