What is the threshold for the # of km of trails for a club to have a groomer - the 120 to 150km noted above I assume?   This makes sense to me if there are clubs with limited number of trails (below the threshold), as long as the neighboring clubs understand its obligation, that they get paid for of course. I guess this makes sense why clubs came together to form one group that makes up x number of clubs to maintain that area.   What happens when they all do not play well in the sandbox and a club is not getting its trails groomed?    

1, 30, or 3000 - you at least need to have 1 that works - and 1 as a back-up for when 1 doesn't  

Not enough trail to warrant having one, there's a good handful of none grooming clubs, has been for decades. They handle land owners, signing, brushing and all things trail related, and grooming is done by neighbouring clubs via district grooming.   Just like a 30km day of sledding used to be a decent day of riding, but now just a throttle blip. Industrial groomers have evolved and there's no need to have one for every 30 km of trail.      The new 120-150km per groomer "policy" is just absolutely absurd, and starting to really show how taxing it is on the fleet it's self as a whole, operators and the volunteers who maintain the equip. 

I agree, considering that the OFSC owns these and manages the fleet (from what I understand), should be a data base that would clearly points out if a club is missing one from an assent management side of things. But I have also learned based on some of the details shared for other club situations, there is a process, it is not a fast one, but if it is not followed, the results are not what you may be looking to achieve - not suggesting that is the issue here, but clearly this easily turns into a finger pointing exercise. 

Link to Dunlop Lake Lodge with new ownership below.  Most google searches show old info.   Elliot Lake Cottages, Ontario - Waterfront Fishing Cabins