Snowbike use in snow vehicle use areas

[moparmadman40]

I have been inquiring with the alberta government for a few weeks trying to determine what vehicles are allowed to operate in alberta snow vehicle areas and have finally gotten a good answer. The definition they are using for a snow vehicle is "a motorized vehicle designed chiefly for use on snow or ice" which would basically include any OHV with a track and ski. The belief that if it is not registered as a snowmobile then it is not allowed does not hold true, and our ever more popular snowbikes seem to be allowed to operate on alberta snow vehicle trails and areas. If anyone would like a copy of this statement just PM me your e-mail address and I will forward it to you. Good news!

 

[Rbrduk]

Not to be a Debby downer,
To me " a motorized vehicle designed chiefly for use on snow or ice" means a vehicle that is built to and not modified to run on snow.
So your dirt bike which was designed chiefly to run on dirt does not meet the requirements.

Just my opinion.

 

[moparmadman40]

I agree that the original form of a dirtbike does not meet this description, but if a track and ski is installed then the design is no longer a dirtbike it is a snowbike. If the alberta government had called these areas "snowmobile use" or had created a legal definition of a snow vehicle that had stated this then it would be different. I've received this information directly from the Approvals Manager at Alberta Environment and Parks.

 

[doorfx]

How does a quad with tracks fit in ?

 

[Sledderglen]

How does a quad with tracks fit in ?

They are perfect for Mclean Creek.
No ski

Its a slippery slope and this NEW winter toy may be the start to negative changes.

Seen a couple of rented snowbikes out there a week ago. They don't steer to good on packed trails. Skis don't bite to good. Rider was having a hard time going in a straight line. These snowbikes are for powder or off trail riding mainly. Really not a safe ride on groomed trails.

Quads with tracks are still quads and still rut up the trails climbing hills and rooting around. Safety issue hitting those ruts.

If its registered anything other that a snowmobile should go where designed use is allowed. JMHO

 

[moparmadman40]

Anything that has tracks or wheels all around would be considered an all terrain vehicle as it has the ability to drive on surfaces other than ice or snow. If it has a ski it can be surmised that it is designed only for travel on ice or snow as a ski does not work on anything else (well at least). The thought that the bikes shouldn't be allowed on a snowmobile trail because they don't handle well in those conditions is pretty narrow minded, how do you expect to get to the free sledding area's that have the open areas and good snow? also kinda like saying that an older sled shouldn't be allowed on the trails because it doesn't handle as well and can't go as fast as the new ones? and in addition to that, with the new kits coming out they are saying that they are surpassing the trail ability of sleds. Tapped out in 6th gear on the trail with the new bike kits seems to be possible!

 

[Rbrduk]

You are still modifying a machine that is not designed for the purpose you are using it for.
Once the manufacturers come out with a production snow bike that is designed for snow use, then have at it.

 

[retiredpop]

Excerpt from Alberta Parks website for Cataract Creek under "Know the Law". http://www.albertaparks.ca/media/4526117/kc_-_cataract_creek_snowmobile_trails.pdf

◗ Only snowmobiles are permitted in the Cataract Creek Snow Vehicle Forest Land Use Zone.

^^Looks pretty straight forward at this point in time.

According to your reasoning then I should be able to build and run this.
Edit:Of course I'd have to put a Hemi in it for the hills.

 

[JZ1]

Lol, Kaz you are going to have to build wider bridges

 

[moparmadman40]

Retiredpop, if you inspect your map closely you will find that it was printed in 2007. If you refer to the newest Kaninaskis country PLUZ brochure you will find that it refers to these area's as being "snow vehicle" accessible which would fall under the same definition as i have provided before. And in fact, this document also has the definition i have stated and had confirmed by Alberta Parks and Environment on the map itself.



i will note, the esrd website and some of its documentation is misleading and does say "snowmobile" in a variety of places as well as "snow vehicle" in others for the same area's. While this is misleading if it were to come down to law talk, the favor is on the side of the party who did not draft the regulation/contract/law. So ambiguity would err on the side of the person who must interpret this documentation.

 

[machinehead]

Yah, what he said ...........:d

 

[Rbrduk]

So when you register and insure your dirt bike conversation, is it a motorcycle or a snowmobile?

 

[retiredpop]

Thanks for the link madman. I have nothing against snow bikes and know people who have them so that's not where I'm coming from. This new terminology will be opening up a can of worms I think. You can modify just about anything to make it into a snow vehicle so the question will be what constitutes a snow vehicle. As Sledderglen says it's a slippery slope.

 

[Sledderglen]

retiredpop, if you inspect your map closely you will find that it was printed in 2007. If you refer to the newest kaninaskis country pluz brochure you will find that it refers to these area's as being "snow vehicle" accessible which would fall under the same definition as i have provided before. And in fact, this document also has the definition i have stated and had confirmed by alberta parks and environment on the map itself.



i will note, the esrd website and some of its documentation is misleading and does say "snowmobile" in a variety of places as well as "snow vehicle" in others for the same area's. While this is misleading if it were to come down to law talk, the favor is on the side of the party who did not draft the regulation/contract/law. So ambiguity would err on the side of the person who must interpret this documentation.

what????

 

[moparmadman40]

Here you go guys, this is the exact interpretation from Alberta parks and environment

In all legislation there is the “intent” of the legislation. As in the case of “snow vehicles” there are different definitions in different acts. Under the traffic Safety Act a “snow vehicle” is included in the definition of an OHV (Off-Highway Vehicle) In the Public Lands Administration Act there is separate description for OHV and snow Vehicle. This applies Chiefly to our Public Land Use Zone areas.
See below:
Part 9
Public Land Uses
Interpretation
177(1) In this Part and in Schedules 4 to 7
(d) “motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle as defined in the Traffic Safety Act;
(e) “off‑highway vehicle” means a motor vehicle used for cross‑country travel on land or water but does not include snow vehicles or boats;
(f) “on‑highway vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed for travel on a highway;
(k) “snow vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed and equipped to be driven exclusively or chiefly on snow or ice or both;
Now comes the “intent” “Interpretation” part.
The intent of allowing snow vehicles is for trails where they may be soft in summer (muskeg) there are creek crossings, or no defined trails, like alpine bowls. Allowing snow vehicles is generally not an issue, aside from wildlife disturbance, because in order for a true snow vehicle to operate there must be sufficient snow. You aren’t going to take your “skidoo” 20km up a muddy trail on a warm march day when there isn’t any snow. You’re not going to drive that “skidoo” 20km through rocks and mud on that warm march day to ride it up the bare rocky ground in Ranger Creek when there isn’t any snow! The other part comes from a rider experience part. If a wheeled OHV, quad or Side By Side, rides on a packed snowmobile trail, especially as it warms up in the afternoon they can make significant ruts in the snow which absolutely destroys the snowmobile trail. The same can occur if tracks are put on a quad or Side by Side. Also with tracks they can go on the wet rocky trail to get back into an area that has snow. So from the adding tracks to a wheeled quad or Side By Side we may not achieve our desired use on a trail, ie sleds when there’s enough snow, and nothing if there isn’t. In the definition above of snow vehicle I would not include a quad or Side By Side with tracks in that definition as it isn’t designed to drive exclusively or chiefly on snow or ice. I would put them more in the category of “All-Terrain Vehicle”

Now we get to your bike! I would say the chief difference is the ski in the front. You are not going to ride that over 20km of rocky ground to get to a snow bowl. In the definition of a snow vehicle I believe your bike does meet the definition of a “snow vehicle” and I also think it meets the intent of what uses we want to allow. You are only going to ride it on a trail that has sufficient snow, it isn’t going to cause undue rutting under normal driving conditions. No different than a large mountain sled with a driver with a heavy hand on the throttle. If you constantly pin it you’re going to have a rut until you hook up!
The only other thing to consider is the licensing and equipment portion of the Traffic Safety Act. You will require valid insurance and registration, and a headlight and tail light. I don’t know what model of bike this started as so not sure if you have a headlight or taillight.

As it happens I have just given some input to Alberta Transportation around clarifying the definition of Off Highway Vehicle, and Snow Vehicle in the Traffic Safety Act. I have also made a recommendation that a headlight and taillight should only be required if riding at night time (which is defined in the TSA already). That part of the legislation I believe is outdated as you can’t currently buy a dirt bike under 200cc in Canada, from the factory, that is equipped with a headlight or taillight. This makes a lot of ladies, kids, and small riders non-compliant before they even leave the shop.

 

[Kaz Dog]

"You will protect the foothills and mountain area by keeping to the designated trails and bridges. The improper use of your over-snow machine can damage the natural environment."

I picked this above quote off the same 2007 document quoted before - and believe me, this is how the forest and public land officers think about Cataract Creek Snowmobile Trails.

Here is my conundrum - all snow vehicles within the Cataract Creek Snow Vehicle P.L.U.Z. are to stay to the designated trails. We all know this does not happen by many, except those that choose to follow the regulation, or are not interested in traveling on anything other than a trail. Also, any of the mountain specific snowmobiles and snow bikes are able to travel pretty much anywhere they want, with a seasoned rider on board.

What if the government responsible department decided, given that the majority of snowmobiles - and now snow bikers - were driving off trail and shut the P.L.U.Z. down to snow vehicles? What then?

 

[moparmadman40]

That sounds like it would be everyone's problem, but by allowing snowbikes to access the trails that the snowmobiles use do you think that it would make any difference? The majority of the vehicles operating in these areas will always be conventional snowmobiles, and the majority of the users who do not follow the rules will also be conventional snowmobile users.

 

[Kaz Dog]

That sounds like it would be everyone's problem, but by allowing snowbikes to access the trails that the snowmobiles use do you think that it would make any difference? The majority of the vehicles operating in these areas will always be conventional snowmobiles, and the majority of the users who do not follow the rules will also be conventional snowmobile users.

Perhaps, but from the snow bikers I have been in conversation with, they live to ride "the powder, in the trees especially". So numbers may be less, but the percentage will be much greater, I suspect.

 

[Kaz Dog]

PS, no problem here with snow bikes on the trails, my concern is with any rider -their responsibility and safe operation/control on the trails.

 

[Stickman70]

Madman, great work on trying to get to the bottom of how to identify snow bikes in the eyes of the government. These bikes are a part of the winter sport now and that part of the community needs to be recognized to keep the future of "our" sport growing.
The Calgary Snowmobile Club (CSC) as been present in this area for many many years. The CSC's effort's as well as all the volunteers that value the area work very hard and closely with all the government bodies and private enterprises to make sure the area is maintained for many many years to come. That includes the snow bike community, I believe they are here to stay. That being said, I also believe that the mind set of this community has to change. This area has rules that have to be respected, STAY ON THE DESIGNATED TRAIL, and the CSC is doing alot to let sledders know that they have a responsibility to abide by them. Granted, not everyone is getting the message and we all get painted with the same brush, but we are working on getting the message out.
I have talked to a few bikers at both staging areas out there about the rules in the area. Some were nice and thanked me for the info and asked where they can get more info. Those guys get it. But the majority of the responses I got was to "Beat it, I've been riding bikes out here for years and I can go wherever I want." These guys don't get it.
What I'm asking you, Madman, is to get the message out to your snow biker community.
We all need to follow the rules for the future of the area.