OFSC at it again

[UsedtoSkidoo]

I know that every question thrown at the OFSC has always been met with " start volunteering or go to the agm and put forth a motion."

However, its not alway's possible to do so and sometimes the only way to ask those questions is on snowmobile forums or to email the OFSC. And if the OFSC views these as frivolous or doesnt get back to the person asking these questions that really defeats the purpose.

So the above answer of get involved or go to the AGM doesnt really hold water.

[Nutter]

The OFSC would not keep getting frivolous complaints if they would stop doing stupid crap.

Thanks for your vote of confedence, glad to know the time I and 1000's of others spend making sure things are done right is doing stupid crap.

Frivolous? What is frivolous about a permit holder voicing his concern about unpopular spending habits? Frankly every permit holder is more important than treatment like that!

You'd be suprized about the calls and e-mails they get, 100's of calls asking why the trails are not groomed when first 2 inches of snow has settled in Nov.

Take note I didn't center out 02's complaint as stupid, and if you feel the OFSC adding more money to the org by a 3rd party being included in OFSC mail outs is wrong, then start at your club and if majority vote agrees it's carried provincially, and if a provincial majority vote agrees it's gone .... it wont be gone if only you or a hand full of people think it isn't a worthy avenue over an internet conversation.

[Nutter]

I know that every question thrown at the OFSC has always been met with " start volunteering or go to the agm and put forth a motion."

However, its not alway's possible to do so and sometimes the only way to ask those questions is on snowmobile forums or to email the OFSC. And if the OFSC views these as frivolous or doesnt get back to the person asking these questions that really defeats the purpose.

So the above answer of get involved or go to the AGM doesnt really hold water.

That very well may be in your eye's and in the eye's of others, but this is the way that the majority of members who put in the time to run the org feel it's best done.

My issue with asking questions on a public forum is how they are sometimes asked, as in this case it wasn't asked, the wrong facts were just implied without a question even being asked. And if no one was here to post and clear that up, many could go away thing that permit dollars were used for this mail out. Sure some of the guy's like Yukon or myself that volunteer beyond a club capacity are here at times to answer, but certainly not all the time.

I noticed that the OFSC is listed as an OCC sponsor on the home page ? If this is true one could have the opinion that that is a waste of permit money ???

[skidooer]

You'd be suprized about the calls and e-mails they get, 100's of calls asking why the trails are not groomed when first 2 inches of snow has settled in Nov.

That sounds like a really good question. I looked over the OFSC website but could not find an answer to it. I will assume that you are exaggerating because it is impossible to believe they would receive that many calls and emails and still not create a FAQ entry for the question.

[Nutter]

Frivolous? What is frivolous about a permit holder voicing his concern about unpopular spending habits? Frankly every permit holder is more important than treatment like that!

But don't you see? You can drive hundreds of miles across the province for a predefined date and location, sometimes referred to as a club meeting, to voice the exact same message to the exact same set of people. It is clearly much more efficient and better use of everyone's time.

You don't have to, send an e-mail or make a phone call to someone who will be present at a meeting to address the issue for you. Better to have the issue addressed by actuall voting members who volunteer to work out this stuff for free, and who are in full control of how the org is run, then it is to go through paid staff who have no vote.

[Nutter]

You'd be suprized about the calls and e-mails they get, 100's of calls asking why the trails are not groomed when first 2 inches of snow has settled in Nov.

That sounds like a really good question. I looked over the OFSC website but could not find an answer to it. I will assume that you are exaggerating because it is impossible to believe they would receive that many calls and emails and still not create a FAQ entry for the question.

We do a brief wide explanation of provincial condition status is given right at the top of the home page and again on the conditions page, just as one is there now explaining the spring conditions we are in. I and our 16 other exec's lost count at how many calls like this we have answered that come through our club contact numbers alone each season, not hard to believe that the OFSC receives umpteen times that amount.

[UsedtoSkidoo]

I know that every question thrown at the OFSC has always been met with " start volunteering or go to the agm and put forth a motion."

However, its not alway's possible to do so and sometimes the only way to ask those questions is on snowmobile forums or to email the OFSC. And if the OFSC views these as frivolous or doesnt get back to the person asking these questions that really defeats the purpose.

So the above answer of get involved or go to the AGM doesnt really hold water.

That very well may be in your eye's and in the eye's of others, but this is the way that the majority of members who put in the time to run the org feel it's best done.

My issue with asking questions on a public forum is how they are sometimes asked, as in this case it wasn't asked, the wrong facts were just implied without a question even being asked. And if no one was here to post and clear that up, many could go away thing that permit dollars were used for this mail out. Sure some of the guy's like Yukon or myself that volunteer beyond a club capacity are here at times to answer, but certainly not all the time.

I noticed that the OFSC is listed as an OCC sponsor on the home page ? If this is true one could have the opinion that that is a waste of permit money ???

Your missing the point!

My point is; your answer to everything is go to the agm. What about those who cant attend? What about those who wish to answer on a public forum? Your point does not answer every situtaion especially when email's go unanswered.

Please do not answer this point with some convoluted nonsense about majority votes or get involved or whatever.

[revrnd]

Rather than just throw it all out I encourage everyone who objects to this to not fill in any of the contact information, run a black marker over their name and address, put it in the envelope and mail it back. When you do this the insurance company will have to pay for the return email and pay someone to open a piece of junk mail and then dispose of it. If enough people do this maybe it will stop.

We got 3 letters (2 permits bought @ the address). Remembering the mailout last fall I did the same as what 02 mentions. Maybe when they get a mailbox full of these "Return to Sender" items, they'll think twice about these mailouts.

[Easy Rider]

You'd be suprized about the calls and e-mails they get, 100's of calls asking why the trails are not groomed when first 2 inches of snow has settled in Nov.

That sounds like a really good question. I looked over the OFSC website but could not find an answer to it. I will assume that you are exaggerating because it is impossible to believe they would receive that many calls and emails and still not create a FAQ entry for the question.

I have to agree with Nutter on this one. I got 2 calls this week from unhappy sledders upset about the short season. They want their permit money back.....

[Nutter]

I know that every question thrown at the OFSC has always been met with " start volunteering or go to the agm and put forth a motion."

However, its not alway's possible to do so and sometimes the only way to ask those questions is on snowmobile forums or to email the OFSC. And if the OFSC views these as frivolous or doesnt get back to the person asking these questions that really defeats the purpose.

So the above answer of get involved or go to the AGM doesnt really hold water.

That very well may be in your eye's and in the eye's of others, but this is the way that the majority of members who put in the time to run the org feel it's best done.

My issue with asking questions on a public forum is how they are sometimes asked, as in this case it wasn't asked, the wrong facts were just implied without a question even being asked. And if no one was here to post and clear that up, many could go away thing that permit dollars were used for this mail out. Sure some of the guy's like Yukon or myself that volunteer beyond a club capacity are here at times to answer, but certainly not all the time.

I noticed that the OFSC is listed as an OCC sponsor on the home page ? If this is true one could have the opinion that that is a waste of permit money ???

Your missing the point!

My point is; your answer to everything is go to the agm. What about those who cant attend? What about those who wish to answer on a public forum? Your point does not answer every situtaion especially when email's go unanswered.

Please do not answer this point with some convoluted nonsense about majority votes or get involved or whatever.

I have no idea of what to say other then sorry if you don't like how the OFCS is run, but that's the way it is, majority vote through your local clubs voice is the way it's run.... some people ask how to deal with stuff on here and a few of us keep telling people how to, if they don't like the process then do something about it, but again then were back to step 1.

If an e-mail is unanswered follow up with a phone call the phone number is there right under the contact link, I know my server spam's out anyone with a g-mail addy. But as said for best results take your concerns to the people who have the clout to deal with issues, you .... your voice as a permit buyer and club member.

[Nutter]

Rather than just throw it all out I encourage everyone who objects to this to not fill in any of the contact information, run a black marker over their name and address, put it in the envelope and mail it back. When you do this the insurance company will have to pay for the return email and pay someone to open a piece of junk mail and then dispose of it. If enough people do this maybe it will stop.

We got 3 letters (2 permits bought @ the address). Remembering the mailout last fall I did the same as what 02 mentions. Maybe when they get a mailbox full of these "Return to Sender" items, they'll think twice about these mailouts.

Maybe when there's even less money to operate the trail system people will then understand how valuble third party advertising is. I'm sure for some the sponsor adds on here slow down their browsing, should we boycot them ?

FYI ... I filled it out and sent it back, talked for 10 min on the phone with a rep, didn't buy any coverage from them what so ever, then recieved a certificate for the $3000 worth of coverege. If anything would of happeneed to me while out riding this winter, my wife and kids sure would of appriciated the extra $3k of free coverage .....

[SlowTouringGuy]

You'd be suprized about the calls and e-mails they get, 100's of calls asking why the trails are not groomed when first 2 inches of snow has settled in Nov.

That sounds like a really good question. I looked over the OFSC website but could not find an answer to it. I will assume that you are exaggerating because it is impossible to believe they would receive that many calls and emails and still not create a FAQ entry for the question.

I have to agree with Nutter on this one. I got 2 calls this week from unhappy sledders upset about the short season. They want their permit money back.....

That's Hilarious ER !

Of course, the enviable position one is in, here, is to simply tell them to go take a Dump in Their Hat. What are they going to do - Take their business elsewhere ??

[SlowTouringGuy]

Rather than just throw it all out I encourage everyone who objects to this to not fill in any of the contact information, run a black marker over their name and address, put it in the envelope and mail it back. When you do this the insurance company will have to pay for the return email and pay someone to open a piece of junk mail and then dispose of it. If enough people do this maybe it will stop.

We got 3 letters (2 permits bought @ the address). Remembering the mailout last fall I did the same as what 02 mentions. Maybe when they get a mailbox full of these "Return to Sender" items, they'll think twice about these mailouts.

FYI ... I filled it out and sent it back, talked for 10 min on the phone with a rep, didn't buy any coverage from them what so ever, then recieved a certificate for the $3000 worth of coverege. If anything would of happeneed to me while out riding this winter, my wife and kids sure would of appriciated the extra $3k of free coverage .....

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

[sledjunk]

Rather than just throw it all out I encourage everyone who objects to this to not fill in any of the contact information, run a black marker over their name and address, put it in the envelope and mail it back. When you do this the insurance company will have to pay for the return email and pay someone to open a piece of junk mail and then dispose of it. If enough people do this maybe it will stop.

We got 3 letters (2 permits bought @ the address). Remembering the mailout last fall I did the same as what 02 mentions. Maybe when they get a mailbox full of these "Return to Sender" items, they'll think twice about these mailouts.

FYI ... I filled it out and sent it back, talked for 10 min on the phone with a rep, didn't buy any coverage from them what so ever, then recieved a certificate for the $3000 worth of coverege. If anything would of happeneed to me while out riding this winter, my wife and kids sure would of appriciated the extra $3k of free coverage .....

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

Your reputation precedes you!

[Nutter]

Rather than just throw it all out I encourage everyone who objects to this to not fill in any of the contact information, run a black marker over their name and address, put it in the envelope and mail it back. When you do this the insurance company will have to pay for the return email and pay someone to open a piece of junk mail and then dispose of it. If enough people do this maybe it will stop.

We got 3 letters (2 permits bought @ the address). Remembering the mailout last fall I did the same as what 02 mentions. Maybe when they get a mailbox full of these "Return to Sender" items, they'll think twice about these mailouts.

FYI ... I filled it out and sent it back, talked for 10 min on the phone with a rep, didn't buy any coverage from them what so ever, then recieved a certificate for the $3000 worth of coverege. If anything would of happeneed to me while out riding this winter, my wife and kids sure would of appriciated the extra $3k of free coverage .....

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

I wasn't the only one who recieved it after just a phone call, but did hear the same as what happened to you from others, maybe it got to expensive for them if a lot of peole sent it back in ?

None of these insurance endorsements the OFSC has ever connected with has ever worked out for everyone as good as it's first thought, some people got really good quotes and did real well with Sledders Choice, others didn't. But either way to have the cash flow from 3 party advertising going into the org, is something I personally see as beneficial, for just the option of permit buyers to pursue something. But I can guarantee you we certainly cash the checks and put the money use that they send for the service of the advertising.

[skidooer]

if they don't like the process then do something about it, but again then were back to step 1.

So basically what you are saying is that the OFSC is structured so that real change is impossible? Only those who tow the party line will have the ability to work their way to a position of enabling change. But those types of people are not interested in real change to begin with.

I do not think it is horrible that the OFSC is this way. It is natural for those involved to protect what they have done and it seems to be working as-is. I am just not seeing how someone like UTS can realistically make changes, even if his changes really do present a better way to do things.

[Nutter]

if they don't like the process then do something about it, but again then were back to step 1.

So basically what you are saying is that the OFSC is structured so that real change is impossible? Only those who tow the party line will have the ability to work their way to a position of enabling change. But those types of people are not interested in real change to begin with.

I do not think it is horrible that the OFSC is this way. It is natural for those involved to protect what they have done and it seems to be working as-is. I am just not seeing how someone like UTS can realistically make changes, even if his changes really do present a better way to do things.

No your saying that ??

Many on here have accused me "towing the party line", but in the last 5 years I have written and backed several motions annually and carried them to the AGM on my own dime, to try and implement what I thought would be better for the org, before that I did it at a club level ..... the only party line I tow is that anyone who wishes can be involved in running the OFSC and help make changes where changes are needed.

Don't want to volunteer with org or at least share your input through the channels we have then so be it ... If UTS wanted he could either do it in person or send a letter, e-mail followed up by a phone call stating his issue to his local club, then if by majority vote the club wants to carry it to a provincial level then it is carried, if not it stops there. If he wishes to persue it further and is not happy with the club majority vote he can then through the same methods take it to a another club or district level, and if that fails then he can take it personally to the OFSC AGM and voice his opinion on the floor.

[theedge]

I got the same results as STG.

They phoned to set up a meeting time. I suggested they just send me my 3000 dollar policy and save everyone a lot of time.

They told me no meeting = no policy.

Much to say I don't have this coverage.

Neil

[irREVerent]

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

Your reputation precedes you!

Now that's just way too harsh!!!

[SlowTouringGuy]

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

Your reputation precedes you!

Now that's just way too harsh!!!

I hope both of you have life coverage.

[UsedtoSkidoo]

if they don't like the process then do something about it, but again then were back to step 1.

So basically what you are saying is that the OFSC is structured so that real change is impossible? Only those who tow the party line will have the ability to work their way to a position of enabling change. But those types of people are not interested in real change to begin with.

I do not think it is horrible that the OFSC is this way. It is natural for those involved to protect what they have done and it seems to be working as-is. I am just not seeing how someone like UTS can realistically make changes, even if his changes really do present a better way to do things.

No your saying that ??

Many on here have accused me "towing the party line", but in the last 5 years I have written and backed several motions annually and carried them to the AGM on my own dime, to try and implement what I thought would be better for the org, before that I did it at a club level ..... the only party line I tow is that anyone who wishes can be involved in running the OFSC and help make changes where changes are needed.

Don't want to volunteer with org or at least share your input through the channels we have then so be it ... If UTS wanted he could either do it in person or send a letter, e-mail followed up by a phone call stating his issue to his local club, then if by majority vote the club wants to carry it to a provincial level then it is carried, if not it stops there. If he wishes to persue it further and is not happy with the club majority vote he can then through the same methods take it to a another club or district level, and if that fails then he can take it personally to the OFSC AGM and voice his opinion on the floor.

Its kinda like communism, we are all equal until its time not to be equal.

We need a beating a dead horse smiley!

[irREVerent]

That's pretty amazing how you did that. The company told me they would not provide me with the $3,000 worth of coverage that was promised without them physically attending my residence and having me listen to a presentation on their full line of business. Only then would they deliver on their promise. Even when I told them they could save themselves a lot of time and cost of doing business because I was just signing up for the free coverage, they refused to do what was advertised.

It's even more troubling, now, to learn that they have different rules for different people.

Your reputation precedes you!

Now that's just way too harsh!!!

I hope both of you have life coverage.

Yes, absolutely...I was able to get mine over the phone... :poke:

[RevRiders]

Boys we are all a bit testy about the end of the season but if something comes in the mail and you dont like it heave it!

[Domino]

Thanks for your vote of confedence, glad to know the time I and 1000's of others spend making sure things are done right is doing stupid crap.

Well I guess since I am a dedicated volunteer I must be talking about myself....

VOLUNTEERS ARE NOT THE OFSC!!! WE COULD HAVE TRAILS WITHOUT THE OFSC BUT NOT WITHOUT VOLUNTEERS.

Stop trying to twist this around as a personal insult, it is not. If the OFSC can be improved, or if they have made mistakes, volunteers or not, LISTEN!

This arrogance is going to drive people away from the recreational activity.

[Domino]

I know that every question thrown at the OFSC has always been met with " start volunteering or go to the agm and put forth a motion."

However, its not alway's possible to do so and sometimes the only way to ask those questions is on snowmobile forums or to email the OFSC. And if the OFSC views these as frivolous or doesnt get back to the person asking these questions that really defeats the purpose.

So the above answer of get involved or go to the AGM doesnt really hold water.

That very well may be in your eye's and in the eye's of others, but this is the way that the majority of members who put in the time to run the org feel it's best done.

My issue with asking questions on a public forum is how they are sometimes asked, as in this case it wasn't asked, the wrong facts were just implied without a question even being asked. And if no one was here to post and clear that up, many could go away thing that permit dollars were used for this mail out. Sure some of the guy's like Yukon or myself that volunteer beyond a club capacity are here at times to answer, but certainly not all the time.

I noticed that the OFSC is listed as an OCC sponsor on the home page ? If this is true one could have the opinion that that is a waste of permit money ???

Well we would not want any misunderstandings, so this post has resulted in the OFSC link being removed from our website.

When the OFSC pays, we will re-instate it.