1. A $20 ODSC-ADV membership is now available as an alternative to the standard $65 ODSC-OFTR membership, details via the JOIN button
  1. RL

    RL Limited User

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Likes:
    2
    Town:
    Hazelton BC
    Ran across this in a farm paper regarding a report on fencing for Abandoned Rail Right of Ways (ARROW) http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML ... 041_1.html
    and more restrictions regarding the ORV uses are possible?? The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) has recommended that ORV use be restricted on these ARROW's. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) is to give there report this week on the subject.

    OFTR ODSC and others should comment on this report and send it to
    ruth.melady@mah.gov.on.ca

    This could affect how Municipalties deal with ARROW ownership and whether ORV's will receive access.
  2. gybeman

    gybeman Limited User

    Messages:
    2,311
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    Somewhere
    Unbelievably long document. You need a lawyer to decifer it. But some highlights I noticed.
    - 4.3 Hastings County
    The use of abandoned rail right of ways in Hastings County is largely administered through the Eastern Ontario Trails Alliance (EOTA).
    - 4) The EOTA carries $5,000,000 of General Commercial Liability Insurance and this coverage extends to all private and public landowners who are covered with respect to the operations and activities of the EOTA on their lands (http://www.thetrail.ca – business plan).
    - 5) A key change from an agricultural perspective is the professionalism with which the trail is run. In the words of the chair of the Adjacent Landowner/Farmer Committee the trail was “total chaos” before the involvement of the EOTA.
    Today users of the trail pay a membership fee that ranges from $120 annually for an ATV to 0$ for hiking/walking. All of these users play a very important role in policing and monitoring the appropriate use of the trail. The Ontario Provincial Police also play a role in patrolling the trail.
  3. MxTrack

    MxTrack Limited User

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    Burnt River
    Great Post

    Wow muncipalities that own the old railway line are responsible for the install/ maintianing the fence along the rail line. I thought fencing 500 acres cost lot :lol:.

    Connie
    http://www.burntriveroffroad.com
  4. ktmpilot

    ktmpilot Limited User

    Messages:
    70
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Likes:
    0
    rail way access

    so, are there any railway trails / paths anyone rides ...... I'm looking for some new places to explore
  5. dilbert

    dilbert Limited User

    Messages:
    300
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    St. Thomas
    There is a rail trail that runs west of St.Thomas towards Windsor. I'm not sure exactly how far it goes but I've gone as far as rodney. There is also newer rail trail that is still all rocks that runs east from St.Thomas where they've taken the rails out in the last couple years.
  6. dilbert

    dilbert Limited User

    Messages:
    300
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    St. Thomas
    I read through that pdf and from what I took from it the system used in (insert county here) where they have to pay a yearly fee to ride the trails is easily the best option. I realize that we would all like to ride these trails for free and all but thats just not going to happen and keep our riding areas open. I also saw that the biggest issues are liability, which is solved by paying to cover insurance.
  7. RL

    RL Limited User

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Likes:
    2
    Town:
    Hazelton BC
    Regarding fencing; one municipality changed the designation of a ARROW from rail/trail corridor to a highway in order to get around the fencing issue. This then would technically have the trail fall under the HTA for our purposes....which could be good. BUT the courts over ruled the councils decision because a study was not done to prove it was a legitimate and in fairness move on Council's part. This is now under appeal.

    But a bigger problem is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Gerretsen is proposing legislation to require all owners of ARROWs to pay 100% of fencing costs....I guess no matter if it is turned into a RA (road allowance) or not.
    This could cost these ARROW owners BIG $$$$$$$$$$$ if all the adjacent landowners demand a fence.
    This could be a bigger reason for a Ontario trail pass as we ORV's could assist in funding.
    Also could seriously deter anyone from purchasing these ARROWs for trails. :cry: especially through farm country....another economic loss.
  8. amuzme

    amuzme Limited User

    Messages:
    637
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    Gooderham
  9. Smitty

    Smitty Limited User

    Messages:
    2,292
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Likes:
    5
    Town:
    Kagawong
    Why the fences in the first place! Are they really necessary? They're weren't required when they were train tracks. Seems like another government-induced waste of funds.
  10. dilbert

    dilbert Limited User

    Messages:
    300
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Likes:
    0
    Town:
    St. Thomas
    Because people can't stay on the trails, and its the land owner that gets sued when someone tresspasses, and hurts or kills themeselves.
  11. RL

    RL Limited User

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Likes:
    2
    Town:
    Hazelton BC
    Railways are required to maintain 100% of the fencing along there corridors and this is carring forward to new owners of the corridor even though no trains are running. By changing the corridor to a highway designation the Municipalities are no longer required to maintain the fencing. Now the courts are saying you can't do that with out doing a lot of studies and spend $$$$$$$$$$ to prove why it should be a "highway" or a RA at least. Silly BS and games here....keeps people employed I guess.
  12. BillO

    BillO Limited User

    Messages:
    1,673
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Likes:
    5
    Town:
    Bracebridge
    Simple solution to this and the vast majority of land use issues, the provincial government needs to pass legislation that makes it impossible to sue volunteers, volunteer landowners and trespass cases. I can see no real downside to this. The only time there needs to be fencing is when an unnatural, dangerous condition exists like strip mining, blasting or construction. Not farms, back yards, or someone’s (private or public) woods. It should be that if you go onto these, you take matters into your own hands and hope the landowner does not sue you!

    There are way too many sissies’ out there that won’t take responsibility for their own actions coupled with idiot politicians that react in ridiculous ways. It ends up costing everyone and keeping the lawyers in new BMWs.
  13. erussell

    erussell Limited User

    Messages:
    2,376
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Likes:
    1
    Town:
    Stratford, ON
    Not one railway that I have seen in this part of Ontario is fenced. Many old rail beds here are now trails both walking and for motorized use, again not fenced. There are however signs all over that say something like "Stay safe, stay on the trail".
  14. RL

    RL Limited User

    Messages:
    824
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Likes:
    2
    Town:
    Hazelton BC
    The problem Eric is that if a adjoining landowner wants a fence the City/County/township/Owner of the ARROW HAS to pay for it regardless of any reason for the fence....and if it goes to a fence viewer, the fence viewer is going to say the ARROW owner needs to pay for the fence 100% as oppose to 50/50 for property lines or 0% for road side fencing(unless the road is reconstructed). Hence the reason for making a ARROW a road.
  15. Husky Man

    Husky Man Ride Organizer

    Messages:
    1,381
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Likes:
    19
    Town:
    Dufferin County
    Ya,
    I thought this fence issue was put to rest and did not apply anymore. I've been wrong before, but I thought there were legal changes made to promote trails by removing the prohibitive costs of fencing abandoned railway right of ways.