Forums

I have a 2016 ,1200 and also like it very much .Hard to upgrade when it just works .Im thinking 900 turbo ,not r model but not many used ones

Like anything with politics involved, it all depends on who's holding the approval pen at the time, and political and economic climate. This is the first time the MTO has not approved a permit price and structure recommendation from the OFSC since Bill 101 came to be.  There was a multi year threshold agreement in place if a certain criteria of need was meet, capped at 7% a season. But again, who holds pen decides.    Although sledding generates a huge amount of economic spin off, we are still a pimple in the grand scheme of things, with a none guaranteed head count of 80 to 100k participants in a province of 16 million. If everyone woven into the economic fabric of sledding in Ontario spoke up it would certainly help. I see that the Parry Sound Chamber of Commerce is now getting involved in the municipal trail closure issue effecting access into town, fantastic to see. 

Not, is not the correct word. Yes, they could, just not as it sits today for the cost of the permit. What they could NOT do, is keep the cost for a permit at the already too low price.    To be honest, this discussion has been fruitful for me.   So I have said over and over, get rid of the MTO.   As I sit here now, I would say I can see the benefit of them being involved. I have a better understanding of the broader picture of their involvement.   That said, I still say there needs to be an adjustment to the agreement to allow more flexibility on price control of the permit. The OFSC are too handcuffed on this part of it, and there needs to be some other way to allow for it.   Maybe implement something where the OFSC can by pass the MTO approval on the annual basis, to allow a max. percentage increase for a year ( say to cover off a great winter ) - not to exceed a total gross increase over a 3 year period - something like that. allow for some flexibility for working together more and helping the greater good - but keep some rails in place.    

You have to keep in mind those are good practices, but they aren't requirements under any regulations. We see claims denied and not successful in the absence of sweep logs, salt logs, etc. all the time. They are a piece of your defence, but not your only defence.   

Signage standardizing is as a result of claims. It's good risk management, but make no mistake, the signage and standardizing of it came as a result of claims.    This will always be a moving target as claims work their way through the system.  The wording of the OLA offers good protection, but it's not bullet proof.