Trail question

[skegpro]

"In 2005, the agency regulated winter motorized use as a discretionary activity under its regulations for Use by Over-Snow Vehicles. ... An over-snow vehicle is defined as “a motor vehiclethat is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track and/or a ski or skis, while in use oversnow”

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-by-over-snow-vehicles-travel-management-rule

That's the American definition, can't find the Canadian or Albertan one I would love to give it a read if anyone can find it.

 

[Kaz Dog]

Dig deeper kaz dog.
Come up with something substantial a lawyer couldn't pick apart.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2011_187.pdf

Section 177 AR 187/2011 PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTRATION REGULATION89

"(k) “snow vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed andequipped to be driven exclusively or chiefly on snow orice or both;"

 

[skegpro]

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2011_187.pdf

Section 177 AR 187/2011 PUBLIC LANDS ADMINISTRATION REGULATION89

"(k) “snow vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed andequipped to be driven exclusively or chiefly on snow orice or both;"

View attachment 208130

And so what part of a side by side equipped with tracks doesn't meet the definition of a snow vechile?

 

[skegpro]

Funny no mention specing only snowmobiles or snow bikes.

They do however mention sufficient snow depth. Which lead me to believe they or only concerned about soil erosion......

 

[Tchetek]

And so what part of a side by side equipped with tracks doesn't meet the definition of a snow vechile?

I was with ya, but the the sxs tracks are also used with out snow in the mud, so that doesn’t meet the “exclusively on snow or ice” part of that definition.

But if the kit had skis and two long tracks on the back, how could it not be viewed in the same category as a snow bike? Then it would be designed to be used exclusively on the snow?

 

[skegpro]

I was with ya, but the the sxs tracks are also used with out snow in the mud, so that doesn’t meet the “exclusively on snow or ice” part of that definition.

But if the kit had skis and two long tracks on the back, how could it not be viewed in the same category as a snow bike? Then it would be designed to be used exclusively on the snow?

Well I appreciate someone else thinking logically about this. I'll give it one last shot to sway you.

In the winter there is no mud or muskeg. So even if you could operate in that terrain there is none available at cataract creek, during the winter.

So in my mind the argument because it is dual purpose it shouldn't be allowed is bs.

If a guy showed up on a sxs with 30" silverbacks you tell him to go pound muskeg.

But I think the OP did not have any malicious intent, he probably only owns a sxs and would like to go for a tour of the mountains in the winter.

What I don't appreciate is that the Calgary club president has interpreted the rules to support his snowmobile only mantra. It sounds like the snowbikes was a tough one for them to swallow.

But the rules state that it is a snow vechile trail and I feel that if the Calgary club president really wanted to he could make the case that sxs with tracks is indeed a snow vechile, but he doesn't want to for some odd reason. Instead he is grasping at straws to demonstrate that it shouldn't be allowed.

I am fawking sick of the NDP and other governing bodies stating what we can and cannot do on our land.

And if someone wants to deny a guy and 2-4 of his passengers a good time out on some trails in the mountains in his snow limo because of gross missinterpretation well then....
I don't like it one bit.

Freedom to the outdoorsman!
However you get there, just don't fawk the trails.

If this isn't considered a snow vechile you need to question your life.

Drop mic.

 

[skegpro]

I was with ya, but the the sxs tracks are also used with out snow in the mud, so that doesn’t meet the “exclusively on snow or ice” part of that definition.

But if the kit had skis and two long tracks on the back, how could it not be viewed in the same category as a snow bike? Then it would be designed to be used exclusively on the snow?

PS when I used to work in for mac we had to fly in to alot of gas wells. They then discovered that a snow cat worked very well in the muskeg and replaced some heli time for us.

I never did take video of it but ask around and guys will tell you.

https://youtu.be/o_9nNF9ps7g

 

[skegpro]

https://youtu.be/H_LQgqproSc

Snowcat pushing dirt.

Better not let the cataract creek groomer out on the trails anymore.

 

[skegpro]

https://youtu.be/t1Z9Vtlr1HU

Snowcat pushing silage.

 

[skegpro]

https://youtu.be/zcpB7R7pceo

If you can convince me that this Tucker snowcat is different in principle than a sxs with tracks snow wise I'll mail you a beer.

 

[LBZ]

Basically the rules are up to ones own interpretation. Generically, in Alberta if you can't legally drive it on a government road, it's considered an ohv. Which includes sleds.

Buy if you read the more specific rules where it says snow use only, it's not specific. Atv's with tracks can go in the mud and snow, but then there are folks that own SNOWmobiles that only use them to ride on the water in the summer so wtf how does one decide which is legit?

You could use the argument that it must have a ski or two, but then this shows up.


So now what????

Crazy idea but why not go back to using a little thing called common fn sense. If it's on tracks and or skis, doesn't look like it's going to rut up a trail, and it's registered and insured, how about we just call it good to go?

 

[skegpro]

Basically the rules are up to ones own interpretation. Generically, in Alberta if you can't legally drive it on a government road, it's considered an ohv. Which includes sleds.

Buy if you read the more specific rules where it says snow use only, it's not specific. Atv's with tracks can go in the mud and snow, but then there are folks that own SNOWmobiles that only use them to ride on the water in the summer so wtf how does one decide which is legit?

You could use the argument that it must have a ski or two, but then this shows up.


So now what????

Crazy idea but why not go back to using a little thing called common fn sense. If it's on tracks and or skis, doesn't look like it's going to rut up a trail, and it's registered and insured, how about we just call it good to go?
//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180104/0b705e33311778b9d0af0ca0a4e512fb.jpg

Fawken eh.
I was about ready to give up.
Thought everyone with common sense packed her in.
Thanks.

 

[tiger666]

Just when I start to get bored of this site,a good controversy comes up.You go skegpro I'm with you on this one,and like lbz says a little common sense goes a long way.We as canadians are known all to well to just sit back and take it,It's why our province and country are in the state we're in.

 

[skegpro]

I was with ya, but the the sxs tracks are also used with out snow in the mud, so that doesn’t meet the “exclusively on snow or ice” part of that definition.

But if the kit had skis and two long tracks on the back, how could it not be viewed in the same category as a snow bike? Then it would be designed to be used exclusively on the snow?

Says exclusively or chiefly......

I do believe that a sxs w/tracks can be operated chiefly on snow, in the winter.

Winter in theory should be exclusively snow and sub zero temperatures.

Summer would be mud and muskeg, but the trail would then be closed to snow vechiles.

A good lawyer would have a hay day with this and would mop floor with ole Kaz dog.

 

[52weekbreak]

Skegpro: I salute you sir.

 

[skegpro]

I own a pioneer 1000 i have tracks for winter are these allowed on your trails

So after great debate you are legally good to go.

All that stands between you and fun is the president of the Calgary Club, Kaz dog, and his lack of reading comprehension.

He has so graciously allowed snowbikes at his country club even though he considers them to be a "grey area."

Even though a semi educated primate could draw the parralell between the definition of a snow vechile and a snow bike.

That conclusion about a sxs with tracks being a snow vechile is proving to be a little more complicated but given some time I am confident he will get there.

 

[Kaz Dog]

So after great debate you are legally good to go.

All that stands between you and fun is the president of the Calgary Club, Kaz dog, and his lack of reading comprehension.

He has so graciously allowed snowbikes at his country club even though he considers them to be a "grey area."

Even though a semi educated primate could draw the parralell between the definition of a snow vechile and a snow bike.

That conclusion about a sxs with tracks being a snow vechile is proving to be a little more complicated but given some time I am confident he will get there.

skegpro - your level of ignorance and incomprehension is unbelievable. Please, operate on a designated snowmobile trail within a Snow Vehicle P.L.U.Z. with an OHV/ATV/SxX with tracks and get ticketed, I would love to see your arguments before a judge.

 

[skegpro]

skegpro - your level of ignorance and incomprehension is unbelievable. Please, operate on a designated snowmobile trail within a Snow Vehicle P.L.U.Z. with an OHV/ATV/SxX with tracks and get ticketed, I would love to see your arguments before a judge.

You have some dense material between your ears there Kaz Dog.

Your supposed to be a steward of the sport, but look at you go.

 

[TylerG]

You have some dense material between your ears there Kaz Dog.

Your supposed to be a steward of the sport, but look at you go.




//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180104/a575e7ecb430bff96e7e272750b15089.gif

I'm afraid Skegpro, I'm going to have to side with Kaz Dog here..... the ignorant one here is you.......

 

[Mike270412]

Basically the rules are up to ones own interpretation. Generically, in Alberta if you can't legally drive it on a government road, it's considered an ohv. Which includes sleds.

Buy if you read the more specific rules where it says snow use only, it's not specific. Atv's with tracks can go in the mud and snow, but then there are folks that own SNOWmobiles that only use them to ride on the water in the summer so wtf how does one decide which is legit?

You could use the argument that it must have a ski or two, but then this shows up.


So now what????

Crazy idea but why not go back to using a little thing called common fn sense. If it's on tracks and or skis, doesn't look like it's going to rut up a trail, and it's registered and insured, how about we just call it good to go?
//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180104/0b705e33311778b9d0af0ca0a4e512fb.jpg

That looks like a snow machine to me.