Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Another section of trail closed this week thanks to the proposed Bill 100 this time in Baysville , D102B at Echo Lake rd and Hwy 117 is now closed. You now have to run Echo Lake Rd until you connect with D102B again.

I understand there was a closure last wk in Dwight as well.

I fear it will only get worse if this is not addressed soon.
 

·
ride hard or die trying
Joined
·
7,800 Posts
Another section of trail closed this week thanks to the proposed Bill 100 this time in Baysville , D102B at Echo Lake rd and Hwy 117 is now closed. You now have to run Echo Lake Rd until you connect with D102B again.
I understand there was a closure last wk in Dwight as well.
I fear it will only get worse if this is not addressed soon.
Yep I saw that yesterday with the gate closed and the sign up.

It's been a bad snow year and now thanks to this bill it's going to get worse.

I heard a bunch in bala are closed aswell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Lots of misinformation about this Bill, once clarified, I'm sure these trails will reopen.
Agreed. Don't blame the bill. Blame those that deliberately spread wrong info. The problem I fear is that those landowners that have been scared into closing the trails might play the cautious card and keep them closed regardless of being set straight...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
All trails through Bracebridge CLOSED due to Bill 100

Hand written signs posted on main D trail - "closed due to bill 100 - call your MP"

Groomers are PARKED

OFSC dropped the ball on this one BIG TIME

We finally get enough cold and snow to have some limited riding - the trails here have been closed the entire season, and we get BILL 100

Maybe the OFSC office(s) need to become like the Toronto Maple Leafs - time to "clean house" due to complete lack of performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
All trails through Bracebridge CLOSED due to Bill 100

Hand written signs posted on main D trail - "closed due to bill 100 - call your MP"

Groomers are PARKED

OFSC dropped the ball on this one BIG TIME

We finally get enough cold and snow to have some limited riding - the trails here have been closed the entire season, and we get BILL 100

Maybe the OFSC office(s) need to become like the Toronto Maple Leafs - time to "clean house" due to complete lack of performance.
Do you think that's really fair?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this bill. The OLA put out completely false, misleading and fearmongering information regarding this..the OFSC has no control over that. So now it's the OFSC's job to clean up the mess that someone else created? The OLA made this mess, and you can bet they haven't put out anything to correct their own misleading propaganda.. so now landowners are stuck..do they believe the OLA or do they believe the OFSC? The last thing they want to do is trust the wrong person..so they will err on the side of caution..and I'm pretty sure they don't want to spend money on a lawyer to interpret the bill... so now that rests with the OFSC I suppose?

It's not so cut and dried in my books... But at least lets' lay the blame where it belongs...the OLA. None of this would be happening if they hadn't put out that garbage they call "information" out there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,434 Posts
OFSC at a minimum should be arranging a media interview clarifying that there is misinformation out there causing landowners to close their land to snowmobilers in a knee jerk reaction to previously released mis-information. Shouldn't they be getting the REAL word out there to calm people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
OFSC at a minimum should be arranging a media interview clarifying that there is misinformation out there causing landowners to close their land to snowmobilers in a knee jerk reaction to previously released mis-information. Shouldn't they be getting the REAL word out there to calm people?
this is an issue, friend of mine has property that a ofsc trail goes thru, it was presented to him by a club official that if the bill goes thru the ofsc can appropriate his land because of the existing trail on it, so he is now going to close his land off until there is 100% clarification on what will happen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
this is an issue, friend of mine has property that a ofsc trail goes thru, it was presented to him by a club official that if the bill goes thru the ofsc can appropriate his land because of the existing trail on it, so he is now going to close his land off until there is 100% clarification on what will happen
Are you saying that an OFSC club official told him that? Are you sure about that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Okay..so apparently it's not just the OLA that is perpetuating false and misleading information regarding this.

Check out this link.. from an MPP... http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=82144

I don't know where they find "vague" parts of the proposal...

So how is the OFSC alone supposed to dissuade landowners and ensure they understand that there is no risk, when there are even MPP's out there that appear to contributing to the damage?

This is potentially disastrous!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
FFS, this is gonna get ugly, gonna give those landowners who have been on the fence the push they need to shut it down permanently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The D101B at near Oxtongue Lake was closed this Family Day weekend due to Bill 100. This trail closure shutdown the whole trail system heading to north of HWY 60 including the RAP. It also hurt the Dwight Winter Festival because no one from the South could sled up to the event. What a shame!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
Do you think that's really fair?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this bill. The OLA put out completely false, misleading and fearmongering information regarding this..the OFSC has no control over that. So now it's the OFSC's job to clean up the mess that someone else created? The OLA made this mess, and you can bet they haven't put out anything to correct their own misleading propaganda.. so now landowners are stuck..do they believe the OLA or do they believe the OFSC? The last thing they want to do is trust the wrong person..so they will err on the side of caution..and I'm pretty sure they don't want to spend money on a lawyer to interpret the bill... so now that rests with the OFSC I suppose?

It's not so cut and dried in my books... But at least lets' lay the blame where it belongs...the OLA. None of this would be happening if they hadn't put out that garbage they call "information" out there...
My family owns a woodlot near the village (no OFSC trail on it). A few years ago the OLA's ugly head had risen & they were stirring up chit about some issue. I told my parents that if they were ever approached by this group to tell them to take a hike.

What I posted elsewhere:

This reminds me of the of the chatter a non-sledder asked me about quite a few years ago. He had heard from another non-sledder that if you gave permission to the snowmobile club for "X" number of years, the permission became permanent. I said NO that wasn't the case. The length of the permission was completely @ the discretion of the landowner.

Where does this crap start?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
From the OFSC site.

http://www.ofsc.on.ca/content/landowner-concerns-respect-access-snowmobile-trails

Landowner concerns in respect of access for snowmobile trails

Recently there has been discussion in the media regarding the use of easements to secure trails. While the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs (OFSC) has consulted with the provincial government on many trail related issues and welcomes legislative changes that would provide added protection for both its member organizations and landowners, principally in respect of trail liability, it has not had cause to be a party to any discussion in respect of land access.

For decades now, snowmobile trails have existed through partnerships between individual landowners and their local snowmobile club utilizing written agreements. These land use permission agreements adequately define land use parameters, including landowner cancellation authority and notice, and ensure that the OFSC's General Liability Insurance protects the landowner.

The OFSC and our member organizations do not have any intention of utilizing easements preferring rather to use the traditional time tested land use agreement process which has, and continues to serve landowners and clubs well.

Update: Subsequent to the above explanation, the following statement has been released:

"The province introduced Bill 100, the Supporting Ontario's Trails Act, 2015, to improve access to Ontario's trails, building both a healthier, and more prosperous Ontario. Our ministry held consultations with over 250 organizations, including municipalities, Aboriginal groups, trail organizations and not-for-profit organizations. The feedback the ministry heard during these consultations was integral to shaping the proposed legislation.

To be clear, an easement pursuant to Bill 100, if passed, would be a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an eligible body or bodies. No property owner would be compelled to provide an easement unless they agreed to do so.

- Michael Coteau, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport"

So why all the problems? Is the OFSC not getting the correct message out to land owners?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
So why all the problems? Is the OFSC not getting the correct message out to land owners?
I think the message needs to be stronger. The OLA has implied that OFSC land use agreements would constitute a means to obtain an easement..considering that landowners voluntarily enter into land use agreements, they can still interpret the message as meaning they "agreed" to provide an easement, and it would/could happen without further consultation.

I think more information needs to be put out there regarding the process that an easement is registered...so they know it can't happen behind their backs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I think the message needs to be stronger. The OLA has implied that OFSC land use agreements would constitute a means to obtain an easement..considering that landowners voluntarily enter into land use agreements, they can still interpret the message as meaning they "agreed" to provide an easement, and it would/could happen without further consultation.

I think more information needs to be put out there regarding the process that an easement is registered...so they know it can't happen behind their backs...
I agree 100%. It would be very helpful if the OFSC were to get into the media and address this and reassure land owners. As we all know when the OFSC wants to sell permits its a media blitz. Now would be a good time to use the media to try and clear this up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
I am not a lawyer,and trying to read bill 100 makes my head hurt.I can see why land owners are suspicious.
The issue that we need to remember is that this is not "new" legislation.

Laws have to be very specific. Currently, in Ontario, there already is law that enables the registration of easements on private property. Landowners can grant easements for a variety of situations that are spelled out in the current legislation, such as hydro easements, etc.

My understanding is that the law, as it stands, does not currently allow a landowner to grant an easement in favour of a recreational trail (snowmobile, ATV, hiking, etc). They couldn't do it even if they wanted to!.

My understanding is that all Bill 100 does is add that ability to already existing legislation. Period. No fancy expropriation terms or anything was added that allows it to happen behind their backs. That's why the term is "may" register an easement, etc.etc.. It's completely voluntary, but now landowners may do this if they desire (after Bill 100) whereas they currently cannot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
It's too bad the misinformation was spread so wide.

Even if it's cleared up with these individuals, I see it being likely that some will just not want to deal with any of it anymore and just pull the agreement to use their land all together.

Between this, guys running off the groomed trail, I'm sure for a few of them this is just the last straw.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top