Another shot being fired at sledders in the press

[snochuk]

That won't happen although it has been talked about. They are worried people won't call if there is a monetary fee associated with it which may result in fatalities.

Only way I see them being able to recover some costs is by charging a flat rate fee attached to snowmobile registration. But that would raise problems also as what about those that are in the backcountry doing non-motorized sports?

Just my .02 but I think the problem should be addressed and that means those involved in the occurance.
Just not a fan (right or wrong) of general fees, prefer the guilty party user fee. You use it you pay.

I do like the idea of an optional adder on insurance or registration for rescue recovery costs....nice one.

Some how accountability needs to be brought into the equation.
Won't call in because of cost - I garauntee that as soon as this occurs a couple times internally the dumb azz ones will drastically clean up there act. As sad as this might seem to some......not so bad in the long run as it will very quickly drive home accountability!

 

[dogsmack]

Can it not be a simple as after the incident a quick "investigation" to prove stupid vs, bad luck. Stupid pays bad luck learns for next time?

We all know you can't fix stupid. My $0.02

 

[Stompin Tom]

Can it not be a simple as after the incident a quick "investigation" to prove stupid vs, bad luck. Stupid pays bad luck learns for next time?

We all know you can't fix stupid. My $0.02

And who determines stupid to bad luck? We are talking government here.

One could argue its bad luck to be stupid.

 

[KatMan]

Dont see it as a shot either. Black eye yes. Too bad. At this rate the government will get involved as stupidity incidences increase. Won't be a pay as you are in trouble. Will be a tax or user fee that all will pay, responsible sledders or not.

Other thing thing they could do is shut everything down. End of problem for them.

 

[NorthstaRmk]

I honestly think that in order to ride a snowmobile in the back country, the government should create a special license that people must get, to get this license, you should have at minimum AST1 coupled with a survival coarse, and riders should be mandated to carry a certain number of survival items. By implementing something like this, it prevents the two newbies who just bought 174 t3's from going into places they have no idea the dangers and or consequences. Seems a little harsh, but the avy deaths this year have hit too close to home for me.

 

[Stompin Tom]

I honestly think that in order to ride a snowmobile in the back country, the government should create a special license that people must get, to get this license, you should have at minimum AST1 coupled with a survival coarse, and riders should be mandated to carry a certain number of survival items. By implementing something like this, it prevents the two newbies who just bought 174 t3's from going into places they have no idea the dangers and or consequences. Seems a little harsh, but the avy deaths this year have hit too close to home for me.

Who and how to enforce?

 

[Machomachoman]

Seems like every popular groomed areas are run by sled clubs. Add another 10 bucks per sled pass per day so they can buy insurance or self insure for rescues. Higher risk areas will cost more to sled as risks are greater. Either way eventually we will/are paying for it through taxes. The government like the economic stimulus of sleds, truck, decks, hotels, food, gas, clothing, et so they will figure out a way to cut their costs and pass it on to the users. Just a matter of time as the optics of sledders never has and never will be favourable. Just plain truth. We are the smokers of the 70's, and we will be penalized till The special interest groups get their way.

oy yah, BTW. JFK's killer was behind the grassy Nole. Wake up people.

 

[pano-dude]

Seems like every popular groomed areas are run by sled clubs. Add another 10 bucks per sled pass per day so they can buy insurance or self insure for rescues. Higher risk areas will cost more to sled as risks are greater. Either way eventually we will/are paying for it through taxes. The government like the economic stimulus of sleds, truck, decks, hotels, food, gas, clothing, et so they will figure out a way to cut their costs and pass it on to the users. Just a matter of time as the optics of sledders never has and never will be favourable. Just plain truth. We are the smokers of the 70's, and we will be penalized till The special interest groups get their way.

oy yah, BTW. JFK's killer was behind the grassy Nole. Wake up people.

This makes more work and more liability for already over worked volunteers.

 

[LBZ]

This makes more work and more liability for already over worked volunteers.

How does paying the lot person collecting fees an extra $10 create more work? Or liability that's any different?

 

[ferniesnow]

Another fly in the ointment gets thrown in when you can access the backcountry without going through a "trail pass collector". Not all areas are "controlled" by clubs and/or people and not all areas can be or should be. IMHO, whether bad luck or bad decision, the user should pay for SaR. They have been saying it for years and years as the SaR costs in time and effort increases astronomically in all seasons. There will eventually be a charge for the use of SaR.

Now the next question is how to get the out-of-province people to pay? It will be like a charge that doesn't go across provincial borders sort of like for riding a quad/SXS with no helmet or registration. The CO's can give the ticket but if the out-of-province user refuses to pay the only way of getting the coin is with a warrant to be served the next time said dude comes back to the province. The CO's have two sections of regulations to work under (I don't remember the names) and I have heard a senior CO state at a public meeting that out-of-province people can just take ticket in hand, go home, and refuse to pay. If it were like Fisheries where they can confiscate everything (rods/reels, fish, truck, trailer, RV, boat and motor, etc..) it would be much better in the favour of enforcement officers.

 

[Lund]

I think what bothers me the most about that article is the part that says no emergency responders can get to snowmobilers in the backcountry. That's the way it should be. Many areas are very remote and it needs to be understood that things can go wrong, and you should not be thinking to yourself " its okay if I drop down here because I can use my Satellite phone to call for help". As a group and as individuals we need to be more prepared to fend for ourselves and even spend a night if need be. THEN, if the only option is for SnR so be it. The service they provide is taken for granted way to often, especially this year.

This is a little off topic, however the mindset needs to change IMO

We spend a lot of our time on ski's or snow shoes, most SAR's rescuer's don't sled and have minimal time on sled's. Most of the time once we locate the sledder or sledders we have to use ski's to get to them. Every situation is different.
Not all SAR's team have everything or expert available to them at the time of rescue, i don't get called out much anymore being off for the winter and on the reserve emergency list only, i was on stand by one weekend this season and all was good. But in my region i'm one of two that can repel from a chopper if needed. An asset from my military years carried over to SAR's.
The majority of calls are NON emergencies, in otherword's NO injuries or life threats. Everything you hear on the news are the worst of calls and in fact are minimal in numbers of calls compared to calls of non emergencies.
If we could teach people to take care of them selves better and be more self reliant we would eliminate well OVER 50% of SAR's call outs.
Certain equipment like sat phones and spot has drastically amplified the calls cause people lean on them too much instead of relying on back country wilderness skills. It is something we are loosing with the use of electronics.
We want to get the calls for real emergencies. If you get your self into a pickle then you need to figure it out. Instead of contacting the SAR dispatch, maybe the calls should be to a relative or friend explaining the situation and if you need to spend the night, so be it. People are not using their head while riding but also not using their heads once in trouble.

IMO, that is where the sledding community needs to start, making sledders more self reliant. Having better back country survival skills. Not relying so much on SAR's and electronics.

 

[Bnorth]

How does paying the lot person collecting fees an extra $10 create more work? Or liability that's any different?

because now the disgruntled local or 'Rick from Red Deer' are going to bitch that much more about trail fees and how they want a refund because there were some whoops. People will try harder to avoid the collector and go in back ways. Also if you are charging extra for insurance or SAR support that absolutely opens up liability if there is an injury or lost riders.

 

[LBZ]

because now the disgruntled local or 'Rick from Red Deer' are going to bitch that much more about trail fees and how they want a refund because there were some whoops. People will try harder to avoid the collector and go in back ways. Also if you are charging extra for insurance or SAR support that absolutely opens up liability if there is an injury or lost riders.

I disagree on all your points.
People already bitch about whoops and trail fees.

And there is no more liability. They would be collecting the extra money and putting it in a fund for sar. They may have to start issuing receipts stating that though.

The liability on the back of the trail pass stays the same. The club isn't any more responsible than before.

 

[pano-dude]

How does paying the lot person collecting fees an extra $10 create more work? Or liability that's any different?

If the club is liable for what happens then hazards need to be marked, avy zones controlled, etc. People already complain about 20 fees, another 10 may increase the whining.
Clubs are maxed out in what they can do.

Its almost at a point where it is not worth the effort to manage an area with volunteers. If sled areas want the economic impact of sled tourism then maybe management of the areas needs to be operated as a business by tourism a agency.

 

[moyiesledhead]

Its almost at a point where it is not worth the effort to manage an area with volunteers.

That's exactly where we're at as a small club. We considered looking for funding to get going with a grooming program, but ultimately decided to just keep the area quiet and to ourselves and just avoid all the hassle, liability, thankless work, and whining.

 

[FernieHawk]

I skied in France for a month back in the 80's.

You had a choice...buy all encompassing insurance that covered SAR, Ambulance and Hospital and be free and clear if you required any of those services...or not buy insurance and be on the hook for costs if you require them. The Insurance cost was minimal...I think it was called Cart Neige.

The SAR guys are professionals and the helicopters are well equipped, they do it for a living.

Not sure if that would work here as the population is lower and more spread out.

 

[Lund]

I skied in France for a month back in the 80's.

You had a choice...buy all encompassing insurance that covered SAR, Ambulance and Hospital and be free and clear if you required any of those services...or not buy insurance and be on the hook for costs if you require them. The Insurance cost was minimal...I think it was called Cart Neige.

The SAR guys are professionals and the helicopters are well equipped, they do it for a living.

Not sure if that would work here as the population is lower and more spread out.

I'm not sold on that system or any system that uses too many government regulation or uses clubs or resorts to charge extra for an outdoor activity like alot already mentioned. What happens then it separates lower income owners to not affording to do the sport, which IMO is wrong.
Not too much is affordable in Europe for that reason. And i don't think it makes for better outdoors people such regulations and fee's.
I believe the problem should be more directed towards individual education. No matter how old you are or experienced, knowledge will always help you make a wiser decision. Wiser decision making will mean less non needed SARs call out and less avalanche victims, etc. etc.
How this could be implemented, i don't know.

 

[101110101101]

I'm not sold on that system or any system that uses too many government regulation or uses clubs or resorts to charge extra for an outdoor activity like alot already mentioned. What happens then it separates lower income owners to not affording to do the sport, which IMO is wrong.
Not too much is affordable in Europe for that reason. And i don't think it makes for better outdoors people such regulations and fee's.
I believe the problem should be more directed towards individual education. No matter how old you are or experienced, knowledge will always help you make a wiser decision. Wiser decision making will mean less non needed SARs call out and less avalanche victims, etc. etc.
How this could be implemented, i don't know.

I am one of those "lower income" people (relative to anyone O&G) and I think it's a great idea. It offers a choice for people like me (use my brain and take my chances) and people with more money (pay the insurance fee).... options are never a bad thing.

 

[bobsledder]

Clubs have agreements with owners of FSR roads to maintain and charge for use of them to access the backcountry/alpine. The backcountry can be accessed many other ways and I believe I am free to do so. Think that is how it works, correct me if that isnt right. I do that often but have been an EVSC member the past 10 years as I have been told there is a lot more to it than just getting a groomed road for that money. There is also a lot of country without managed areas.
Raising trail fees to protect stupid would just promote avoiding groomed FSR to access the backcountry in those areas and could hurt membership numbers in my opinion.

 

[moyiesledhead]

Clubs have agreements with owners of FSR roads to maintain and charge for use of them to access the backcountry/alpine. The backcountry can be accessed many other ways and I believe I am free to do so. Think that is how it works, correct me if that isnt right. I do that often but have been an EVSC member the past 10 years as I have been told there is a lot more to it than just getting a groomed road for that money. There is also a lot of country without managed areas.
Raising trail fees to protect stupid would just promote avoiding groomed FSR to access the backcountry in those areas and could hurt membership numbers in my opinion.

You are correct......on all counts.