Comment on the whole ORV registration legislation.

[livinadream]

NOTE: BCORMA does great things for our sport I am not in any way suggesting the association is not effective and necessary. I believe that ministry of forest representatives took advantage of the inexperience of the various groups at the negotiating table. Requiring confidentiality agreements effectively shut down the strength of the BCORMA and the other negotiators and was a smart move on the part of government representatives.

Our strength is in our collective voice not allowing feedback and information flow to the various negotiating groups membership silenced that voice.

This confidentiality agreement effectively kept 1000s of ORV owners out of the process.

I read the recent BCORMA news letter (see bottom of this post) I have a couple of questions:

Particularly with respect to this line: Sorry to have been so cagey about this, but it has been a long process, and subject to the confidentiality agreement. However, thanks to consistent pressure from motorized reps in all sectors, we are pleased to have achieved this concession.

Cagey?... I feel more like naive, I believe Ken Mclelland and the other BCORMA negotiation members always truly had the best interest of all ORV owners when at the government table and did not intentionally mislead members.

That said BCORMA is a members association with allegedly several hundred members it is not just a few who speak for all. How is it BCORMA executive can agree to a confidentiality agreement allowing important issues to be only reviewed by a few with no input from all members.

Even though I feel BCORMA executive truly were acting on what they felt was the best interest of all,It seems to me it was incumbent on the directors to have a constant flow of information between the representatives on the government committee and membership at large.

If signing a confidentiality agreement prevented this flow of information on this important issue then it at the very least it should have been put to a members vote before signing it.

Does board have the right to sign a confidentiality agreement with out first a membership vote agreeing to this I don't know. (Caveat: What I know about the law as it applies to associations could be counted on one hand)

It may just my distorted thinking, I just don't see how a small committee with no regular feedback from membership could properly represent its membership as a whole. Is there a possibility that the confidentiality agreement was mis-understood and in fact members were allowed access to information but information could not be released to the general public? Maybe.

If there are any dual sporting lawyers out there ,I would be interested in what their thoughts are?

In the end this whole thing has become a nightmare for all, it is confusing, it is difficult to prove ownership of many off road vehicles, Autoplan brokers are in absolute confusion.
I have spoken to riders who have spent four hours at the autopian office trying to register a motorcycle for which brand that is not in the ICBC data base and can not be registered yet.

This brings to question: Was this whole process actually legal and transparent? Do we have a right to challenge the entire process and possibly have this whole regulation over turned? Maybe there is still time for all to unite and repeal this law.


Provincial Government conceds to decals for Dirt Bikes and Sleds for November 1, 2015 ORV Registration

Hi Everybody,
So now for officially perhaps the worst-kept secret around, it is OFFICIAL that we will be using a sticker/decal system of ID'ing ORV's, and mandatory registration has been postponed until November 1st, 2015.
Sorry to have been so cagey about this, but it has been a long process, and subject to the confidentiality agreement. However, thanks to consistent pressure from motorized reps in all sectors, we are pleased to have achieved this concession.
We still have tonnes more work to do and will continue to need your support to press home to Government proper sizing and location of decal, and all the items we listed in our letter to the Premier - Compliance and Enforcement applying laws correctly, consistent education of ICBC brokers, proof of ownership and taxes paid documentation, and the establishment of an ORV Trails Fund like the hunters and fishers benefit from.

 

[tomcycle]

Good comments and observations, as I was on the BCORMA board of directors (bod) at the time I can shed a little of what I saw happening. To start off with I did not worry to much about Registration as DSBC members are pretty much all have registered machines. At the time the BCORMA bod was asked to participate, we as a group felt it was important. This process had already started some time before BCORMA was even started. I agree with you that the BCORMA bod was truly naive and did not discuss or think through the whole confidentiality agreement. We were just thinking it would be better sitting at the table than sitting outside.

BCORMA elected to have its Executive Director be its representative. This meant we had a paid guy at the table, that could not report back to the bod. This was a topic of discussion many times.

ATVBC had its ED at the time Terry W sitting on the (Off Road Vehicle Joint Advisory Group) ORVJAG and very soon into the process he decided that he had to report back to the ATVBC bod as many topics he needed to get direction from his bosses. He was denied the JAG and told he could not discuss many of the issues with his bod, so he decided he could not do his job without disclosure of information to ATVBC bods and members, he resigned from the ORVJAG. ATVBC appointed a volunteer.

Several times the BCORMA ED tried to get permission to discuss issues with his bod and was always denied. This created a lot of conflict between myself and several of the BCORMA bod. Ultimately the BCORMA ED got removed from the ORVJAG over an issue that was not worth it.

BCORMA has taken a lot of heat from myself and many riders out their, for their handling of the whole Registration and Licensing. They deserve most of it, but in fairness the government gave them the tape to cover their mouth, its just BCORMA chose to use it. BCORMA did the best they could do with the information they had. BCORMA has done a poor job of getting the information out, and getting the information in, they already know this. They have tried face to face meetings, telephone conference calls, website, web forum, web conference, newsletters, emails, twitter, facebook, etc etc, nothing seems to work for them. BCORMA has a huge communications problem.

Now the ORVJAG is moving to working out the finer detail of the legislation, still under the confidentiality agreement. What are they thinking???????

In several States they legislated street registered vehicles from using trails, yes that means dual sports. This could be happening right now and we would not know about it until its too late. Much of what the ORVJAG is discussing should, must be available to all.

TT

 

[hawk]

I talked to the government rep on the confidentiality agreement. She was very clear that the government wanted a place to bounce ideas off the various groups without it becoming a public debate, as it was just an idea that maybe hadn't even been discussed with Ministers.
What could have and still can apparently come out of these meetings is something like this:
Government to JAG : We'd like to discuss the idea having full size license plates on all off road machines.
BCORMA or other attending members to their board and members: We'd like to get your opinion on full size plates for off road machines. BCORMA has been discussing different ways of identifying ORV. (Notice how the government is left out of the conversation and it is not mentioned where the feedback is to be directed other than BCORMA).
Basically BCORMA can discuss it as their own idea as long as it never, ever leads back to the government.
I believe this is actually a good idea as it gives the government a chance to try things out on us without getting ministers and other politicians involved until the idea is more than just that. Personally I think that the confidentiality agreement has been taken to the extreme. Now I haven't been at the meetings but I don't believe the government person I talked to was lying to me. Just my 2 cents.

 

[DirtClunker]

I heard the same info as hawk, second hand from a Minister: BCORMA could have talked all they wanted to the off road motorcycle community. Collecting user input, discussing users needs, etc. They just could not discuss what the govt was saying in the meetings. They totally could have been telling people it was coming and totally could have asked for members input. Personally I was completely blindsided when the OHV act was announced, I did not have a clue it was coming. Then quite irked when I heard that BCORMA was involved all along, but was not saying a damn thing. After a few first hand experiences with the BCORMA ED and his style of communication it all made sense.

Tom, you are quite right. BCORMA has a lot of communication channels, but they are not working or they are used incorrectly. Users are failed of being informed, and even more important: members needs are not being listened to. (yes, I know I should not end a sentence with a preposition, but I ride a dirt bike after all).

 

[Lmhawk]

Here in the south south east of the kootneys we have a problem of the bicycle riders taking over all the roads an making them into bicycle only tracks .they run there bicycles an dogs through the bush an trails with out regard for anyone but them selves bicycle riders should have there bicycles lisenced just like everyone else ( what are they hiding)