(The following is a March 24, Whitehorse Star article by Chuck Tobin, entitled “Make North trail non-motorized, resident urges,” and located on page 4 of that edition.)
Make North trail non-motorized, resident urges
Hidden Valley resident Liz Reichenbach has asked city council to redesignate the Whitehorse North trail as a non-motorized trail.
Having walkers and other non- motorized trail users sharing the trail with motorized users presents a safety issue, she told council at its meeting Monday.
The city, she said, already provides ample trails for motorized use.
“I would like to voice my opposition to the motorized designation of the Whitehorse North motorized designation and potential widening of the Whitehorse North trail,” Reichenbach told council.
The public consultation process conducted by the city on the trail designation was flawed – with a short, two-week response time for area residents to provide input on the survey during last summer, she added.
She said just 10 per cent of the residents living in the Whitehorse North area responded. That is 19 out of 185 packages that were delivered, she advised council.
“Poor participation was predictable with summer consultation when people were on summer holidays, just after two years of COVID restrictions were lifted,” Reichenbach pointed out.
She said the information packages sent to area residents were obscure. The package was easily dismissed as an advertisement versus important information needing action, she said.
The survey questions were too few and general to be meaningful or useful, she added.
When she talked to the Ta’an Kwach’an Council of Lake Laberge, she said, they did not have any knowledge of consultation on the motorized trail designation.
“We need to be respectful of our neighbours when our actions may negatively impact their lands,” she told council members.
In an interview with the Star Thursday, Reichenbach explained that the Hidden Valley, MacPherson Whitehorse North trail has been motorized year-round forever – but nobody knew about it.
It’s been officially designated as motorized year-round within the past month or so, she said.
Reichenbach said motorized recreational vehicles have been using it for the past three to five years.
She suspects most are kids likely under the age of 16 – the legal age to have the required driver’s licence to operate a snowmachine or motorcycle. Children aged eight to 11 are driving on the trail, she informed council.
Reinhenbach also noted under city trail policy, the definition of single-track trails – which the Whitehorse North trail is designated as – prohibits motorized use on the trail.
Reichenbach said city administration wrongly reported robust consultation and no opposition on the trail designation – fostering uninformed decision-making at city hall.
The city denied repeated requests for the consultation report on the trail designation, and instead was provided an inaccurate administrative summary which was also provided to council, she said. Reichenbach said public scrutiny is vital to transparency and accountability, because the devil is in the details.
The city regularly cites the need for balance when designating motorized trails, she pointed out. Reichenbach noted, however, when reviewing the city’s trail maps there are copious numbers of motorized trails but just four trails designated for non-motorized use. It’s the designation of non-motorized trails that is lacking balance, she said.
Reichenbach told council motorized trails are expensive to maintain while maintenance on non-motorized trails costs much less.
Combining motorized use with non-motorized use presents a safety hazard. That’s especially true for non-motorized users such as children and mothers out walking with their strollers, she said. Reichenbach said there are hills and blind corners that prevent walkers from seeing or even hearing approaching traffic.
The non-motorized designation aligns with the city’s Official Community Plan’s vision of valuing inclusion, healthy exercise and responsible environmental actions, she pointed out.
“Finally, it makes no sense in Whitehorse North to have motorized trails,” Reichenbach told council. “Therefore, I ask that our trails be redesignated as totally non-motorized year-round.”
She received no response from council members. [Note: One councillor (Kirk Cameron) did ask the delegate a question.]
City Council Standing Committee meeting of October 17, 2022: Delegate presentation on the draft Whitehorse North Trail Plan
Good evening!
My name is Keith Lay. I am here for Active Trails Whitehorse Association to comment on the Whitehorse North Trail Plan.
Tonight’s Administrative Report suggests that the Whitehorse North Trail Plan is a response to the “desire for clarity around motorized multi use and non-motorized trail use by proposing designations for existing trails.”
Unfortunately, clarity as to permitted trail use was not provided at the start of the trail planning process, and the current draft trail map does little to address that deficiency.
The 2020 Trail Plan defines non-motorized multiple use trails as trails to be used by a variety of non-motorized users, a definition that clearly indicates the desire of citizens to ensure there are at least some neighbourhood trails that (for various reasons) are free from motorized use in both summer and winter.
Unfortunately, survey participants were given no explanation as to what had to be done to ensure that any proposed non-motorized trail in their neighbourhood actually became non-motorized year-round.
When ATWA questioned this, we were told that administration would “include the additional clarity as to where snowmobiles can go” at the September 14 so-called charrette.
So, administration waits until the very end of the trail plan process to “include the additional clarity,” that would have allowed residents to make informed choices and comments in response to the four survey questions that pertained to neighbourhood trails.
Perhaps the City is too embarrassed to reveal the fact that in order to make a trail truly non-motorized in winter and summer, an amendment has to be made to the 2012 Snowmobile Bylaw in order to include that trail in the bylaw’s Excluded Trails section, a costly, time-consuming, and ridiculous requirement.
Councillors should ask administration whether or not the latter will ask that the one proposed non-motorized multiple use trail in Whitehorse North be included in the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw. If not, there will be no truly non-motorized trails in Whitehorse North.
View the draft trail plan map. Look at the number of proposed motorized multiple use trails that are up for designation in Whitehorse North. Whatever happened to the idea of an equitable trail system?
To us it seems that the City wants to create as many motorized multiple use trails as possible, even though they are the most expensive trails to build, maintain, and police.
And then it goes on to allow so-called non-motorized trails to be motorized for half the year despite what the 2020 Trail Plan says about such trails.
The City has always ignored the current OCP which says, “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.” (OCP p. 74)
As well, according to the Trail Maintenance Policy, “No motorized use is permitted on single-track trails.” Yet, this information does not appear on the draft Whitehorse North trail plan map. Doing so might at least help to protect such trails from becoming widened by ATV and snowmobile use.
Unfortunately, the City has yet to ensure that the out-dated Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to be consistent with the Trail Maintenance Policy with regard to single-track trails. In fact, it apparently wants to do just the reverse.
Tonight’s Administrative Report makes a confusing attempt at clarity when it includes the following statement: “As with previous neighbourhood trail plans, snowmobile use will continue to be permitted as per the City Snowmobile Bylaw.”
As alluded to previously, what it fails to mention is the existence of the “Excluded Trails” section of the bylaw, and the fact that this City Council could actually insist that the one proposed so-called non-motorized trail in Whitehorse North be added to this section, making it truly non-motorized. We ask that you do so.
What the report also fails to clarify is that motorized multiple use trails are supposed to be designed (for safety reasons) to accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users.
A so-called non-motorized trail is not designed to accommodate motorized use in winter, and to allow motorized and non-motorized users on such a trail is simply unsafe and irresponsible, especially when there is an obvious solution: include all trails in Whitehorse North that are not designated as motorized, into the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw.
Of course, if City Council really wanted to bring clarity and equity to our trail system, end the confusion associated with so-called non-motorized trails, improve safety and trail protection, and reduce costs, then it would amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use trails that are designed and designated for their use, and which are featured on the City’s new motorized multi-use trails map.
Thank you . . . Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Make North trail non-motorized, resident urges
Hidden Valley resident Liz Reichenbach has asked city council to redesignate the Whitehorse North trail as a non-motorized trail.
Having walkers and other non- motorized trail users sharing the trail with motorized users presents a safety issue, she told council at its meeting Monday.
The city, she said, already provides ample trails for motorized use.
“I would like to voice my opposition to the motorized designation of the Whitehorse North motorized designation and potential widening of the Whitehorse North trail,” Reichenbach told council.
The public consultation process conducted by the city on the trail designation was flawed – with a short, two-week response time for area residents to provide input on the survey during last summer, she added.
She said just 10 per cent of the residents living in the Whitehorse North area responded. That is 19 out of 185 packages that were delivered, she advised council.
“Poor participation was predictable with summer consultation when people were on summer holidays, just after two years of COVID restrictions were lifted,” Reichenbach pointed out.
She said the information packages sent to area residents were obscure. The package was easily dismissed as an advertisement versus important information needing action, she said.
The survey questions were too few and general to be meaningful or useful, she added.
When she talked to the Ta’an Kwach’an Council of Lake Laberge, she said, they did not have any knowledge of consultation on the motorized trail designation.
“We need to be respectful of our neighbours when our actions may negatively impact their lands,” she told council members.
In an interview with the Star Thursday, Reichenbach explained that the Hidden Valley, MacPherson Whitehorse North trail has been motorized year-round forever – but nobody knew about it.
It’s been officially designated as motorized year-round within the past month or so, she said.
Reichenbach said motorized recreational vehicles have been using it for the past three to five years.
She suspects most are kids likely under the age of 16 – the legal age to have the required driver’s licence to operate a snowmachine or motorcycle. Children aged eight to 11 are driving on the trail, she informed council.
Reinhenbach also noted under city trail policy, the definition of single-track trails – which the Whitehorse North trail is designated as – prohibits motorized use on the trail.
Reichenbach said city administration wrongly reported robust consultation and no opposition on the trail designation – fostering uninformed decision-making at city hall.
The city denied repeated requests for the consultation report on the trail designation, and instead was provided an inaccurate administrative summary which was also provided to council, she said. Reichenbach said public scrutiny is vital to transparency and accountability, because the devil is in the details.
The city regularly cites the need for balance when designating motorized trails, she pointed out. Reichenbach noted, however, when reviewing the city’s trail maps there are copious numbers of motorized trails but just four trails designated for non-motorized use. It’s the designation of non-motorized trails that is lacking balance, she said.
Reichenbach told council motorized trails are expensive to maintain while maintenance on non-motorized trails costs much less.
Combining motorized use with non-motorized use presents a safety hazard. That’s especially true for non-motorized users such as children and mothers out walking with their strollers, she said. Reichenbach said there are hills and blind corners that prevent walkers from seeing or even hearing approaching traffic.
The non-motorized designation aligns with the city’s Official Community Plan’s vision of valuing inclusion, healthy exercise and responsible environmental actions, she pointed out.
“Finally, it makes no sense in Whitehorse North to have motorized trails,” Reichenbach told council. “Therefore, I ask that our trails be redesignated as totally non-motorized year-round.”
She received no response from council members. [Note: One councillor (Kirk Cameron) did ask the delegate a question.]
City Council Standing Committee meeting of October 17, 2022: Delegate presentation on the draft Whitehorse North Trail Plan
Good evening!
My name is Keith Lay. I am here for Active Trails Whitehorse Association to comment on the Whitehorse North Trail Plan.
Tonight’s Administrative Report suggests that the Whitehorse North Trail Plan is a response to the “desire for clarity around motorized multi use and non-motorized trail use by proposing designations for existing trails.”
Unfortunately, clarity as to permitted trail use was not provided at the start of the trail planning process, and the current draft trail map does little to address that deficiency.
The 2020 Trail Plan defines non-motorized multiple use trails as trails to be used by a variety of non-motorized users, a definition that clearly indicates the desire of citizens to ensure there are at least some neighbourhood trails that (for various reasons) are free from motorized use in both summer and winter.
Unfortunately, survey participants were given no explanation as to what had to be done to ensure that any proposed non-motorized trail in their neighbourhood actually became non-motorized year-round.
When ATWA questioned this, we were told that administration would “include the additional clarity as to where snowmobiles can go” at the September 14 so-called charrette.
So, administration waits until the very end of the trail plan process to “include the additional clarity,” that would have allowed residents to make informed choices and comments in response to the four survey questions that pertained to neighbourhood trails.
Perhaps the City is too embarrassed to reveal the fact that in order to make a trail truly non-motorized in winter and summer, an amendment has to be made to the 2012 Snowmobile Bylaw in order to include that trail in the bylaw’s Excluded Trails section, a costly, time-consuming, and ridiculous requirement.
Councillors should ask administration whether or not the latter will ask that the one proposed non-motorized multiple use trail in Whitehorse North be included in the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw. If not, there will be no truly non-motorized trails in Whitehorse North.
View the draft trail plan map. Look at the number of proposed motorized multiple use trails that are up for designation in Whitehorse North. Whatever happened to the idea of an equitable trail system?
To us it seems that the City wants to create as many motorized multiple use trails as possible, even though they are the most expensive trails to build, maintain, and police.
And then it goes on to allow so-called non-motorized trails to be motorized for half the year despite what the 2020 Trail Plan says about such trails.
The City has always ignored the current OCP which says, “Where feasible, consideration shall be made to separate multi-use trails (which accommodate motorized and non-motorized recreation) from non-motorized trails.” (OCP p. 74)
As well, according to the Trail Maintenance Policy, “No motorized use is permitted on single-track trails.” Yet, this information does not appear on the draft Whitehorse North trail plan map. Doing so might at least help to protect such trails from becoming widened by ATV and snowmobile use.
Unfortunately, the City has yet to ensure that the out-dated Snowmobile Bylaw is amended to be consistent with the Trail Maintenance Policy with regard to single-track trails. In fact, it apparently wants to do just the reverse.
Tonight’s Administrative Report makes a confusing attempt at clarity when it includes the following statement: “As with previous neighbourhood trail plans, snowmobile use will continue to be permitted as per the City Snowmobile Bylaw.”
As alluded to previously, what it fails to mention is the existence of the “Excluded Trails” section of the bylaw, and the fact that this City Council could actually insist that the one proposed so-called non-motorized trail in Whitehorse North be added to this section, making it truly non-motorized. We ask that you do so.
What the report also fails to clarify is that motorized multiple use trails are supposed to be designed (for safety reasons) to accommodate both motorized and non-motorized users.
A so-called non-motorized trail is not designed to accommodate motorized use in winter, and to allow motorized and non-motorized users on such a trail is simply unsafe and irresponsible, especially when there is an obvious solution: include all trails in Whitehorse North that are not designated as motorized, into the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw.
Of course, if City Council really wanted to bring clarity and equity to our trail system, end the confusion associated with so-called non-motorized trails, improve safety and trail protection, and reduce costs, then it would amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect the ATV Bylaw, and prohibit snowmobile operators from using non-motorized multiple use trails, greenbelts, and open spaces, and restrict snowmobile operation to motorized multiple use trails that are designed and designated for their use, and which are featured on the City’s new motorized multi-use trails map.
Thank you . . . Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Regular City Council meeting of October 24, 2022: Delegate presentation on the draft Whitehorse North Trail Plan.
Good evening.
My name is Keith Lay. I am here as an associate with Active Trails Whitehorse Association in regard to the Whitehorse North Trail Plan.
In last Monday’s discussion of the draft trail plan, reference was made to motorized “out and away” trails recommended in both the current OCP and 2020 Trail Plan.
Twelve years have now passed and we still have no designated “out and away”motorized trails. Councillors should ask administration if any of the proposed MMU trails in Whitehorse North are to be labelled as “out and away” trails and, if not, why not?
Last Monday administration was asked to provide the ratio of MMU trails to non-motorized multiple use trails identified on the draft trail plan map. I believe the response was that 60% of the trails on the draft map were motorized and 40% were non-motorized.
How can administration make that claim, as any non-motorized multiple use trail that is not included in the Excluded Trails section of the bylaw is open to snowmobile use in winter?
Administration said (that rather important) information would be provided at the September 14th so-called charrett, virtually at the end of the trail planning process.
As only 18 or so people attended that meeting (not all being residents), one wonders how many of the residents of Whitehorse North are still under the mistaken impression that a non-motorized trail will be protected from motorized use year-round.
It seems that the City wants to change the 2020 Trail Plan’s definition of a non-motorized multiple use trail to read as follows: Trails to be used by a variety of non-motorized users and snowmobilers.
City Council needs to rectify this confusing situation by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as ATWA has suggested.
Concerns related to safety and trail impact were mentioned at last week’s Standing Committee meeting (10/17), but no elaboration was provided. Perhaps councillors should ask to hear those concerns.
Please refer to the draft trail map and look at the proposed MMU trail that goes from the MacPherson area to Hidden Valley.
Now look at the City’s Motorized Multi-Use Trails map where the City has already announced to all and sundry that the trail is a Motorized Multiple Use trail, prior to it being designed and designated as such by City Council, and well in advance of the trail planning process. How could anyone who opposes this designation get a fair hearing?
The proposed designation of the MacPherson Trail as MMU does not seem to address the fact that at certain points the trail is too close to homes in the area and the noise generated in both summer and winter is disturbing to residents.
One of ATWA’s associates elaborated on this concern:
“MacPherson Road ends in a cul de sac, but before then the trail has two access points on either side of MacPherson Road. This means riders have to ride across MacPherson to continue towards the new portion of trail into Hidden Valley. Both sides of MacPherson, at this point, should be designated as non-motorized (summer and winter) to eliminate the danger of motorized vehicles crossing the road into oncoming vehicles, as well as eliminate the noise issue with homes paralleling both sections of the trail at these access points.
The section behind the homes on the east side of the trail have already been designated as non-motorized so it doesn’t make sense to me [not to do what I have suggested.] But I suspect the powers at be want a continual route because it looks good on paper.”
A circle has been placed on the draft trail map to indicate future so-called non-motorized trail loop development. Are there not already other trails in existence that loop back to the school that could be utilized?
Why are we contemplating building more trails in an area that administration already admits has a myriad of trails? There is a cost to building such trails, not only to the City, but also to the environment.
And, are these proposed trails to be single-track mountain bike trails? And, if built, will they be included in the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw to help ensure the safety of trail users from the school community in winter? Councillors need to ask administration these questions.
There are numerous single-track trails in the Steven’s Quarry area of Whitehorse North. It is our understanding that some of these trails are used for cross-country skiing, and have been maintained and tracked by a local resident. Is this still the case?
And, if so, should not these be considered to be included in the Excluded Areas section of the Snowmobile Bylaw?
ATWA would like to know if our when the trail plan survey results are going to be released to the public? Have they been made available to members of City Council?
Last Monday the question was asked as to why snowmobiles are allowed on trails where ATVs are not permitted.
Administration replied that snowmobiles are allowed on non-motorized trails where trails are wide enough to accommodate their use. Councillors did not question this response, a response which in itself demonstrates the lack of clarity surrounding appropriate trail use.
Perhaps administration was hoping that the Trail Maintenance Policy would have helped to protect some non-motorized trails from misuse, as it does say that “No motorized use is permitted on single-track trails,” but unfortunately, City Council has yet to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect this policy.
The loophole that is being used to support snowmobile operation on non-motorized trails not listed in Sections “E” and “C” of the Snowmobile Bylaw, is that the bylaw says they can operate in “any other area of the City” not listed under “Excluded Areas.”
These areas include trails of various widths, and it will be the snowmobile operator whose skill level, resolve, and level of respect for our trails that will determine whether or not to proceed.
Use of non-motorized trails that are not designed to accommodate motorized use can widen trails, which makes them more susceptible to increased machine use in both summer and winter. And, even if a non-motorized trail is “wide enough to accommodate” machine use, it does not mean that they are safe for such use, especially when that use will include non-motorized users.
Administration also told councillors that snowmobiles (due to snow cover) have less environmental impact on trails and the environment than do ATVs. This is a very simplistic and debatable response as any Internet search will indicate. (See attached document provided.)
Whether less, the same, or more, the point is that the Snowmobile Bylaw itself recognizes that snowmobiles can damage trails, especially when operated on trails that are not designed to accommodate them, as it says operators must not “damage vegetation or ground.” Unfortunately, damage may not be apparent until the snow is gone.
And, now we are seeing more ATVs of various types and size being converted in such a manner that they qualify as Snowmobile Conversion Vehicles and can be operated on trails in winter. One wonders what the impact that such vehicles will have on winter trails not designed for their use.
If snowmobilers were required to stay on designated motorized trails and out of open spaces and greenbelts (as are ATVs), then damage would be reduced, particularly to narrow single-track trails. It would also reduce user conflict and disturbance to both plant life and wildlife, end the confusion surrounding the definition of a non-motorized trail, improve safety for all trail users, and make for a more equitable trail network.
Thank you.
Keith Lay (ATWA)
Good evening.
My name is Keith Lay. I am here as an associate with Active Trails Whitehorse Association in regard to the Whitehorse North Trail Plan.
In last Monday’s discussion of the draft trail plan, reference was made to motorized “out and away” trails recommended in both the current OCP and 2020 Trail Plan.
Twelve years have now passed and we still have no designated “out and away”motorized trails. Councillors should ask administration if any of the proposed MMU trails in Whitehorse North are to be labelled as “out and away” trails and, if not, why not?
Last Monday administration was asked to provide the ratio of MMU trails to non-motorized multiple use trails identified on the draft trail plan map. I believe the response was that 60% of the trails on the draft map were motorized and 40% were non-motorized.
How can administration make that claim, as any non-motorized multiple use trail that is not included in the Excluded Trails section of the bylaw is open to snowmobile use in winter?
Administration said (that rather important) information would be provided at the September 14th so-called charrett, virtually at the end of the trail planning process.
As only 18 or so people attended that meeting (not all being residents), one wonders how many of the residents of Whitehorse North are still under the mistaken impression that a non-motorized trail will be protected from motorized use year-round.
It seems that the City wants to change the 2020 Trail Plan’s definition of a non-motorized multiple use trail to read as follows: Trails to be used by a variety of non-motorized users and snowmobilers.
City Council needs to rectify this confusing situation by amending the Snowmobile Bylaw as ATWA has suggested.
Concerns related to safety and trail impact were mentioned at last week’s Standing Committee meeting (10/17), but no elaboration was provided. Perhaps councillors should ask to hear those concerns.
Please refer to the draft trail map and look at the proposed MMU trail that goes from the MacPherson area to Hidden Valley.
Now look at the City’s Motorized Multi-Use Trails map where the City has already announced to all and sundry that the trail is a Motorized Multiple Use trail, prior to it being designed and designated as such by City Council, and well in advance of the trail planning process. How could anyone who opposes this designation get a fair hearing?
The proposed designation of the MacPherson Trail as MMU does not seem to address the fact that at certain points the trail is too close to homes in the area and the noise generated in both summer and winter is disturbing to residents.
One of ATWA’s associates elaborated on this concern:
“MacPherson Road ends in a cul de sac, but before then the trail has two access points on either side of MacPherson Road. This means riders have to ride across MacPherson to continue towards the new portion of trail into Hidden Valley. Both sides of MacPherson, at this point, should be designated as non-motorized (summer and winter) to eliminate the danger of motorized vehicles crossing the road into oncoming vehicles, as well as eliminate the noise issue with homes paralleling both sections of the trail at these access points.
The section behind the homes on the east side of the trail have already been designated as non-motorized so it doesn’t make sense to me [not to do what I have suggested.] But I suspect the powers at be want a continual route because it looks good on paper.”
A circle has been placed on the draft trail map to indicate future so-called non-motorized trail loop development. Are there not already other trails in existence that loop back to the school that could be utilized?
Why are we contemplating building more trails in an area that administration already admits has a myriad of trails? There is a cost to building such trails, not only to the City, but also to the environment.
And, are these proposed trails to be single-track mountain bike trails? And, if built, will they be included in the Excluded Trails section of the Snowmobile Bylaw to help ensure the safety of trail users from the school community in winter? Councillors need to ask administration these questions.
There are numerous single-track trails in the Steven’s Quarry area of Whitehorse North. It is our understanding that some of these trails are used for cross-country skiing, and have been maintained and tracked by a local resident. Is this still the case?
And, if so, should not these be considered to be included in the Excluded Areas section of the Snowmobile Bylaw?
ATWA would like to know if our when the trail plan survey results are going to be released to the public? Have they been made available to members of City Council?
Last Monday the question was asked as to why snowmobiles are allowed on trails where ATVs are not permitted.
Administration replied that snowmobiles are allowed on non-motorized trails where trails are wide enough to accommodate their use. Councillors did not question this response, a response which in itself demonstrates the lack of clarity surrounding appropriate trail use.
Perhaps administration was hoping that the Trail Maintenance Policy would have helped to protect some non-motorized trails from misuse, as it does say that “No motorized use is permitted on single-track trails,” but unfortunately, City Council has yet to amend the Snowmobile Bylaw to reflect this policy.
The loophole that is being used to support snowmobile operation on non-motorized trails not listed in Sections “E” and “C” of the Snowmobile Bylaw, is that the bylaw says they can operate in “any other area of the City” not listed under “Excluded Areas.”
These areas include trails of various widths, and it will be the snowmobile operator whose skill level, resolve, and level of respect for our trails that will determine whether or not to proceed.
Use of non-motorized trails that are not designed to accommodate motorized use can widen trails, which makes them more susceptible to increased machine use in both summer and winter. And, even if a non-motorized trail is “wide enough to accommodate” machine use, it does not mean that they are safe for such use, especially when that use will include non-motorized users.
Administration also told councillors that snowmobiles (due to snow cover) have less environmental impact on trails and the environment than do ATVs. This is a very simplistic and debatable response as any Internet search will indicate. (See attached document provided.)
Whether less, the same, or more, the point is that the Snowmobile Bylaw itself recognizes that snowmobiles can damage trails, especially when operated on trails that are not designed to accommodate them, as it says operators must not “damage vegetation or ground.” Unfortunately, damage may not be apparent until the snow is gone.
And, now we are seeing more ATVs of various types and size being converted in such a manner that they qualify as Snowmobile Conversion Vehicles and can be operated on trails in winter. One wonders what the impact that such vehicles will have on winter trails not designed for their use.
If snowmobilers were required to stay on designated motorized trails and out of open spaces and greenbelts (as are ATVs), then damage would be reduced, particularly to narrow single-track trails. It would also reduce user conflict and disturbance to both plant life and wildlife, end the confusion surrounding the definition of a non-motorized trail, improve safety for all trail users, and make for a more equitable trail network.
Thank you.
Keith Lay (ATWA)