If you ride in BC please take this survey!

[tex78]

Last nite at club meeting we talked about the pmp and bcsf

Club is still waiting fir this new draft, but pretty much was stated that before we tried the 5 bucks off for other passes and or a few years ago they had a buck from every pass to cac... That would now be over 20000 check cut now and club would be in the red and barrow money via bank loan to get by

One thing brought up and as I had said before, we need bcsf for voice forsure.... But at this time some clubs I would assume would dang near be dropping out and mabe even going individual if this push for what the last draft

One question, over half our season pass people are from out of province, and if it's for b.c and comes to a vote ect... Is there vote going to count??? Even tho they are not b.c residents...?

sent while drinking tea's

 

[HotShotHarry]

The club is in B.C. The clubs are the ones who should get a single vote. The club members decide on the direction of the club vote. At least with a reasonably priced PMP, monies and member numbers [ non club members] would be generated.

 

[tex78]

From what I gather is they seem to think it will produce 10000 more members ( example)

But the guys riding from east of bluelake ( south side of high way one) all the way to revy, including Hall, area 51, ect, all the way south to Mable Lake

This is all open, non trail pass areas

How in God's green earth are they going to enforce every single area, and do you think all these guys are going to buy a pass

No friggin way

sent while drinking tea's

 

[ferniesnow]

The club is in B.C. The clubs are the ones who should get a single vote. The club members decide on the direction of the club vote. At least with a reasonably priced PMP, monies and member numbers [ non club members] would be generated.

I agree and that is what both Richard and Donegal stated above. But I have always asked would membership increase and would monies increase without it being mandated by government? I don't like government stepping in but that is the only way I can see it working. Going back again, with the compulsory registration how much did the number of registered sleds increase (was it 20% only)? I guess it is better than a poke in the arse with a sharp stick but it is not enough. People have to change their thought process and support organized snowmobiling so that the numbers and monies are there.

Tex has a good point with the breakdown of membership. I would assume residency doesn't matter. A member is a member wherever he/she lives. Just like voting for the executive. If you are a member sitting at the table when the question is called, you vote.

 

[HotShotHarry]

Oh it wont be easy to enforce, that's true. But how many riders buy insurance and liscence plates in the event that they MAY be caught and ticketed? At least the majority IMO would buy a PMP just in case they may be stopped. There would have to be at the very least, a revolving officer doing checks. and it would have to be at all riding areas, not just managed ones.

 

[HotShotHarry]

Compulsory registration... there will always be Rebels, that's true, but an extra 20% IS better than a poke in the arse and I believe that the more people getting registrations will slowly cause less and lessRebels over time. Imagine the problems that were encountered when the Govt decided many years ago the register automobiles. How many un-registered vehicles are driving around now?

 

[moyiesledhead]

And you are right... there wouldn't be.. As I understand it, and I may be wrong,Is there would be a PMP plus a discounted trail pass required to ride managed areas which would make up the difference. The PMP would generate money and member numbers-re; the riders who use the back country but do not belong to any clubs or never ride managed areas. All riders would be required to buy a PMP. If this PMP cost is to high, all those non club and non managed area riders would balk at paying. Keep the cost reasonable and you would have less non compliant riders not contributing to the cause. There should still be a discounted trail pass required to ride managed areas therefore making up the difference. At least that's the way I think Mike is thinking, and I agree with him.

The first draft has only one membership, and it's provincial, and no option for charging additional day passes on top of that. If you have a provincial membership, you ride everywhere for no additional cost. Day passes would only apply to non-provincial pass holders......in effect non-club members, since all BCSF club memberships would become provincial pass holders paying the same yearly fee.

Haven't seen the second draft yet so I can't comment on what they may have changed in that regard.

 

[HotShotHarry]

Thank you for the clarification. So in essence... all the "Rebels" would still be non contributors, both monetarily and numerically. Not the solution IMO.

 

[tex78]

Thank you for the clarification. So in essence... all the "Rebels" would still be non contributors, both monetarily and numerically. Not the solution IMO.

Not at all, that's one of the issues with draft 1

sent while drinking tea's

 

[ferniesnow]

Another thought to ponder; would the vote be a simple majority of the clubs or 2/3 of the clubs in favour? In my mind a decisive vote would be required for a little more conformity. If it were a simple majority of 51% would it be a strong enough mandate to force this on the clubs/members?

It is an interesting process and from the beginning people knew it wouldn't be easy. Some thought it was quite simple, when in turn dealing with people and their money can be quite the opposite!

 

[pistoncontracting]

I am sorry for the late response on here...I do not cruise Snow and Mud very often and unless someone actually sends me a message and says hey there is a thread going
I loved the pic of the wine glasses...we have all seen it happen many times where the top glass just keeps filling. The BCSF presented this to our member clubs as something they need to decide they want to do and therefore something they control to prevent this from happening. Each season the funding formulas and rates would be set by the clubs. If we wait for Government to regulate us than that picture will be our reality. The BCSF wants us to be able to ride the backcountry for generations to come. But we see at this level that we are being outmaneuvered by Private Interest Groups with high paid staff and lobbyist. I share this link https://y2y.net/vision/our-progress because I think it accurately shows the gains for the green movement and sadly the losses for our sport. If we do not come together with a loud, properly funded voice and strong snowmobile clubs to back that voice..in 30 years this group will be celebrating that the Y2Y mission was accomplished. From Yellowstone to Yukon will be a non-motorized park and if we can still ride-it will be in small regulated snowparks operated like ski hills. That is not the vision of the BCSF or our clubs.

I'm curious why, in this day and age, you would choose not to visit sites like this more frequently, if seeing what the community wants is truly your concern. The info gathered here is likely far more useful then that survey, and likely much cheaper.

From an outsider looking in though, and watching all the other lobby groups in action- it always seems like the polite, most organized ones at the table wind up being the main course. I'd bet a pay cheque, that you could up the BCSF fee to to $1000/year, and it would have the same result in 30 years. The closures happen because we the users let them. It has little to do with 'member' funding.

As for individual clubs having a hard time raising funds, the same applies. Those of us who are members, or who do pay for daily fee's need to call those who skip on paying out to their face. Make it uncomfortable for the free loaders. Make it uncomfortable for those who want to close down areas.


That's the only thing that is going to save this sport for future generations.

 

[catinthehat]

I hope the BCSF doesn't put to much stock in the numbers of respondents on this survey, I have personally filled it out three times in different formats.
From the first time I saw the original draft I have said this will reduce revenue for clubs. When you buy a membership now to your favorite riding area every time you want to go elsewhere you pay a day pass, thus supporting multiple clubs. Under a PMP you only directly support one area. ( yes the proposal allows for distribution through a formula ) but is this distribution going to be anywhere near what they make now?
Let's say one area is having a bad snow year so less riders than usual, the area that has good snow may have a 30 % increase in riders but under a PMP they won't see an increase in income even though they have to increase their workload.
I don't know what the answer is but, like ferniesnow don't think this is it.

 

[pistoncontracting]

I don't know for sure, but I'm betting I could make a good guess as to why they want a system like this.
And the betterment of snowmobiling in BC for the riders is not it.

 

[catinthehat]

One thing that isn't discussed anywhere is how much the pass would be for a non-resident?
You know, like hunting and fishing?

 

[moyiesledhead]

I don't know for sure, but I'm betting I could make a good guess as to why they want a system like this.
And the betterment of snowmobiling in BC for the riders is not it.

It actually is what they're trying to accomplish. This idea didn't come from the BCSF executive. It was put forth originally by a bunch of clubs. The BCSF simply tried to come up with a framework that would work without involving the government. I don't think they accomplished that, but there was never some other hidden agenda.

 

[LBZ]

Why not have two different membership rates? One if you just want to ride your local club area and a little more if you want to ride outside your area. Assign your home club when you pay? Would generate a little more revenue from those that bounce around.

Also are non-members that want to ride not going to have to buy the same pass? If so how many of them are only going good to be riding one or two trips a year? Quite a few from my experience. So they may only buy one pass, but I feel it would be a wash for current revenue vs the new proposal no?

 

[tex78]

I hope the BCSF doesn't put to much stock in the numbers of respondents on this survey, I have personally filled it out three times in different formats.
From the first time I saw the original draft I have said this will reduce revenue for clubs. When you buy a membership now to your favorite riding area every time you want to go elsewhere you pay a day pass, thus supporting multiple clubs. Under a PMP you only directly support one area. ( yes the proposal allows for distribution through a formula ) but is this distribution going to be anywhere near what they make now?
Let's say one area is having a bad snow year so less riders than usual, the area that has good snow may have a 30 % increase in riders but under a PMP they won't see an increase in income even though they have to increase their workload.
I don't know what the answer is but, like ferniesnow don't think this is it.

That's something I never even considered, yes I totally agree with ya on that

sent while drinking tea's

 

[moyiesledhead]

Why not have two different membership rates?

No reason.....but's that's NOT what the current proposal is. I believe that's one of the questions that the survey "should" have asked.

 

[pistoncontracting]

It actually is what they're trying to accomplish. This idea didn't come from the BCSF executive. It was put forth originally by a bunch of clubs. The BCSF simply tried to come up with a framework that would work without involving the government. I don't think they accomplished that, but there was never some other hidden agenda.

I never pointed a finger at the executive of the BCSF in basing my guess as to how this all came about.

I am curious to hear what others think, as to why a bunch of clubs would suggest something like this?? My guess would be in hopes of increasing their funding, at the expense of others. Classic redistribution of wealth, and nothing more.

Id go so far as to say, that by the BCSF getting involved like this is likely the fastest way TO get the government involved.

 

[geo]

If someone wants sled numbers for a meeting in BC ask ICBC. Same in Alberta for registered sleds. You could also ask the sled manufacturers for sales numbers for the past 5yrs. in Western Canada. Then add them all together moneywise and numberwise, like the opposers to everything do.
The government knows these numbers they don't really need to be told. They are really there to see who wins between the groups for future revenue predictions and voter blocks to focus on for the next election.

Numbers are easy to come by if you need them, revenue not so easy.
The opposers to everything multiply these numbers and put a dollar figure and vote per number. This is what impresses the government. Money and votes. They are funded through a worldwide organizations and present these numbers too. This is a whole class level beyond BCSF and a tough uphill climb to defeat. It's the point of the lobsided meetings.

So until you join up with all world wide sled clubs and attempt and be successful to get funded from the manufacturers to keep their future profits, the best and only tool you have is to refrain from consensus.

Everything in the world is becoming endangered, including sledders. Use that and see their faces. It'll buy you another couple of years debate for sure.