|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: House Bill 5186 (Read 6755 times)
|
|
|
Plinko
Member
Offline
Posts: 437
|
Not entertaining. Disturbing.
His email address is: kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov
Here's what I wrote:
Sen Kastana,
I have read SB 5186 in its entirety, and have some questions.
Why burden the system with such a trivial matter?
This feels like it has Crystal Mountain Management written all over it. As if Ski Patrol with radar speed traps on the hill wasn't enough. Which ski area submitted this proposal?
Is this really a large enough problem that justifies a senate bill?
If an area has a closed sign, and a skier/snowboarder chooses to ignore said sign, they are already violating existing trespassing laws, both private and federal, (as most ski areas in Washington State operate with special use permits from the US Forest Service; thus skiers/snowboarders who violate "closed" signage are in violation of Federal law. Yes this is wrong, and should not be tolerated. However, it's already on the books. This additional Bill contributes nothing but the release of legal liable interests of the ski area operators.
Everything in the first page and a half of this bill are established rules at the ski areas. Violation of said rules results in revocation of ticket/season pass, as well as the enforcement of the aforementioned trespassing laws. Why the need for a Senate Bill to duplicate what is already being effectively done?
(While I agree with it, ) Why the release of legal interest of the ski areas?
Despite being the largest user group, this proposed bill neglects to include snowboarders (or other forms of downhill travel, not limited to sledders, tubers, snow skaters, ski bike operators, snowshoers, etc.).
Earlier in the week, an out-of-control snowboarder ignored a large posted "SLOW" sign and careened into a mother and small child, resulting in broken vertebrae of the mother, among other injuries. What does your bill do to address this all-too-frequent type of accident?
Your proposed bill states, "(4) A person shall be the sole judge of his or her ability...", so why act contrary to that philosophy by attempting to force your bill upon people and eliminate their personal freedoms?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/22/11, 02:41 AM by Plinko »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Keith_Henson
Member
Offline
Posts: 511
WWW
|
Kastama is a volunteer ski patroller at Crystal.
I am very interested to know if you get a response from him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Keith A Henson, Puyallup AAC "Let's go! That powder's not going to ski itself." www.KeithHenson.net |
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
It has been my experience with legislators that they do not make this stuff up on their own, but rather respond to their constituents according to the perceived merits of the matter and/or the strength of the lobbying. I have little doubt that Crystal is the lobbyist, the question is why do they want this?
Areas within the permit boundary may sometimes be closed for reasons that pose safety hazards to public and patrol - if a closed area is entry tracked, doesn't patrol look to verify an exit? This can require unnecessary exposure for patrol (don't forget to consider workplace safety laws, L&I and other costs, here). An other candidate leads to the legal aspect of liability. The area operator is not entirely off the hook of responsibility just by blocking and marking access. I imagine having a legal penalty for entering a closed area strengthens the operators' position in liability matters, and would, at least, enjoin the State in any resulting suit in the event of rider (or patrol) injury, or worse. I wouldn't mind hearing a legal expert on this..
Crossing ropes has become a norm. Looks to me like Crystal is saying "if you're going to do that, just don't go looking to our pockets when things go wrong...".
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
arcticcat2
5Member
Offline
Posts: 87
|
Jackson hole has a open gate policy 100% of the time and it seems to work
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
filbo
Member
Offline
Posts: 223
|
100 to 1 the politician wouldn't know a left ski boot from the right, but feels qualified to introduce legislation that's lower than his IQ.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Earlier in the week, an out-of-control snowboarder ignored a large posted "SLOW" sign and careened into a mother and small child, resulting in broken vertebrae of the mother, among other injuries. What does your bill do to address this all-too-frequent type of accident?
A round of applause for Plinko. Your post is exactly on point.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Good2Go
Member
Offline
Posts: 120
|
What if the person skiing in the "closed area" got there by skiing, not riding the lifts? Still a violation?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
What if the person skiing in the "closed area" got there by skiing, not riding the lifts? Still a violation?
Ski areas that allow uphill traffic still will want you to stay out of closed areas within the permit boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
danengel
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
Don't hate on snowboarders! You have to be crazy to think that we account for all of the out-of-control people on the mountain!!!
And I'm sure the intent of the bill is to include anyone that pays for a lift ticket. Otherwise, you could just start snowboarding and it would be perfectly legal for you to be out of control or ride in closed areas!!!
Despite being the largest user group, this proposed bill neglects to include snowboarders (or other forms of downhill travel, not limited to sledders, tubers, snow skaters, ski bike operators, snowshoers, etc.).
Earlier in the week, an out-of-control snowboarder ignored a large posted "SLOW" sign and careened into a mother and small child, resulting in broken vertebrae of the mother, among other injuries. What does your bill do to address this all-too-frequent type of accident?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Plinko
Member
Offline
Posts: 437
|
Otherwise, you could just start snowboarding and it would be perfectly legal... Exactly. Read the text of the proposed bill. There's no mention of snowboarders anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
~Link~
Member
Offline
Posts: 257
|
Collusion being what it may, I don't want to speak in a way that undermines the good fabric of our judicial system and our democracy; my problem is not with our government but rather the collusive forces that attempt to confuse and balkanize the masses. Nonetheless, I maintain that a great way to piss off the people and turn them against their "representative" government is to invoke such silly legislature, as well as to install red-light cameras on every other stop light in this great state... (Amongst other things). Petition anyone??? Enough is enough.
We need some snow!! 
-Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
blitz
Member
Offline
Posts: 314
|
The newspaper article is very SILLY. I doubt a judge would ever enforce a $1000 fine for dropping your ski pole off the chair lift or accidentally skiing across a Jbar path.
If you read the bill it sounds like they are trying to make the "skiers code of conduct" a law.
When the ski area closes an area in-bounds, it is for grooming, avi control, lift ops, a ski race, or other man-made hazzard. They also close areas with extreme hazards like cliffs, waterfalls, and runs with too many hidden dangers. This law is just making it illegal for you to disregard the closures.
If a skier is injured by another skier, the skier who "broke code" can be held accountable in a court of law. Examples of illegal skiing would include skiing out of control, stopping (or skinning uphill) in a blind spot, loosing control of your ski/snowboard because you dont have a leash, throwing your ski pole off the lift.
Thankfully the bill does not require you to take a swim test before you are allowed in the deep end and it is still OK to skin up the left hand side of quicksilver chair. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
alisa
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
Jackson hole has a open gate policy 100% of the time and it seems to work
I would contend that they also do not have 6 lanes of concrete connecting them to a major metropolitan city within a 60 mile radius either. That level of access invites higher than normal level of participants, some educated and equipped, others not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Aaron_Riggs
Member
Offline
Posts: 181
|
I would contend that they also do not have 6 lanes of concrete connecting them to a major metropolitan city within a 60 mile radius either. That level of access invites higher than normal level of participants, some educated and equipped, others not so much.
Good point, but then again, several of Jackson's gates are on the edge of blue runs, with thousands of (non BC equipped) tourists from all over the country/world shussing by.
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
A lot of people do not understand the bill as evidenced by everybody ,and I mean every single person in my office coming up saying that I won't be able to backcountry ski anymore from Crystal which is not correct.
The bill as I understand it specifically relates to those that enter areas in a SKI AREA that are CLOSED by patrol.
I agree that its stupid but it doesn't seem to me be a backcountry issue.
However, it says if you are a member of the National Ski Patrol you wil have the right to investigate.........Can volunteers or even people that don't work at a ski area become members of the National Ski Patrol  ??
If so, I'm going to join so I can investigate people!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Scots - Agree, this is only about discouraging people from poaching closed areas. That said, cant wait to see you doing toboggan drill in a candidates class 
Well according to this I can sign up and take some classes and become a National Ski Patrol Investigator or should it be NPS Detective?? http://www.nsp.org/about/joiningnsp.aspx
Will I be allowed to have a tazer? I'd like that...... I could investigate poachers, ski after them... tazer them at the bottom and wait for the Sherrif while using my Voile ski straps to handcuff them.
I like it!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
Ski pole cattle prod?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Mofro
Member
Offline
Posts: 226
|
I'm not willing to join the fraternal order of NSPand the immense burden of power that comes with it...
but for a certain percentage off the top I will volunteer my services as a "boundry hunter" with the promise of not just kicking ass but also taking names.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
not always bad
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Ski pole cattle prod?
^^^^^^^^^Such stuff dreams are made of.
We could form Vigilante groups and give back to our sport by spending our day on the hill investigating people and demanding "their papers" if we suspect the individual is showing a suspicion of poaching!
Ironic that many of the people we skiers hold as our heros such as Doug Coombs, Shane MC Conkey etc were world class poachers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
I'm not willing to join the fraternal order of NSPand the immense burden of power that comes with it...
but for a certain percentage off the top I will volunteer my services as a "boundry hunter" with the promise of not just kicking ass but also taking names.
I am the law!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Stefan
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
I am theorizing here. It seems to me this is coming form the ski resorts rescuing people out of bounds.
Why does a ski resort operation have to rescue anyone out of bounds anyway? Since when is it their responsibility?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
I am theorizing here. It seems to me this is coming form the ski resorts rescuing people out of bounds.
Why does a ski resort operation have to rescue anyone out of bounds anyway? Since when is it their responsibility?
The change only applies to closed runs in the permit area it says nothing about out of bounds
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
I am theorizing here. It seems to me this is coming form the ski resorts rescuing people out of bounds.
Why does a ski resort operation have to rescue anyone out of bounds anyway? Since when is it their responsibility?
Since they are the closest capable entity to reach the effected victims.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
As already mentioned, It really looks like Crystal pushed this and it was offered to be picked up by the legislator who is a patrol skier.
I had heard mention of this last year from Crystal Patrol, but did not get to see the draft. I still have yet to read the draft proposal, so I feel uneducated to give support or disagreement. From what I was told last year it was designed as a disincentive for those who feel the need to wander into specific closed areas in the resort such as rock face, closures that are being blasted, Kempers, the waterfall are a few locations that have had troubles. I need to research if it's anything more than that purpose.
Trust me, Ian would be more than happy to haul away a few offenders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
jj
5Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
The change only applies to closed runs in the permit area it says nothing about out of bounds
It doesn't seem obvious to me that this doesn't apply to out of bounds areas. Here's the specific section of the law.
26 (7)(a) Any person skiing outside the confines of trails open for
27 skiing or runs open for skiing within the ski area boundary shall be
28 responsible for any injuries or losses resulting from his or her
29 action.
30 (b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is
31 designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has
32 signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the
33 provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject
34 to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
Clearly the clause "within the ski area boundary" is in section 7a. It is not, however, in section 7b. Since 7b is not a subsection of 7a it's not clear that this law wouldn't affect a back country gate with a closed sign. If they added the clause "within the ski area boundary" to 7b I'd have no problem with the proposal.
Am I reading this incorrectly?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
It doesn't seem obvious to me that this doesn't apply to out of bounds areas. Here's the specific section of the law.
26 (7)(a) Any person skiing outside the confines of trails open for
27 skiing or runs open for skiing within the ski area boundary shall be
28 responsible for any injuries or losses resulting from his or her
29 action.
30 (b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is
31 designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has
32 signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the
33 provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject
34 to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
Clearly the clause "within the ski area boundary" is in section 7a. It is not, however, in section 7b. Since 7b is not a subsection of 7a it's not clear that this law wouldn't affect a back country gate with a closed sign. If they added the clause "within the ski area boundary" to 7b I'd have no problem with the proposal.
Am I reading this incorrectly?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.45.020
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
It's a short read.
So I am not in disagreement with this since it is extremely rare that I am in a closed location in a Washington lift access area.
Unless someone can shed some light why it's a big issue?
How does that apply to ski areas that have closed for the daily service? And you ski back into the area that is closed as a means to get back to your vehicle?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
The key on the language is that it has to have signs indicating that it is a closed area.
Signs without ropes are vague and subject to opinion. Ropes alone are considered closures by Crystal's patrol, but if they are not signed as CLOSED they have no legal ability to fine you a dime.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
Only Section 7 (b) (i) and (ii) are SB5186 (ie. the underlined part). The rest is preexisting law. The monetary penalty applies only to this subsection.
If you want to sue a rider for sreaming over a blind roller and causing injury, the rest of that RCW will be in your corner... although you might have to explain what you were doing in that blind spot...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/24/11, 11:41 AM by davidG »
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Stefan
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
Since they are the closest capable entity to reach the effected victims.
thanks for clearing up my ignorance. thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jj
5Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
Sorry to be a stickler about this, but I still have the same objection. The problem is that section 7b includes "slopes" and "areas" not just "trails" and "runs". I know this may seem unnecessarily pedantic, but specific words are really important in legislation.
If they change the language to only include "trails" and "runs" then I'm totally cool with the proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
jj,
The problem with that is that the ski areas have "Permanently Closed Areas" Not ALWAYS trails and runs.
So Rock Face at Crystal that gets poached would be an Area, not a trail or run since there is no trail or run on the permanently closed area.
If in bound slopes are closed for avy control that could be considered the area.
Can you be more specific by presenting an example(s) of your by your definition to explain your vision better to me?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
jj
5Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
jj,
The problem with that is that the ski areas have "Permanently Closed Areas" Not ALWAYS trails and runs.
So Rock Face at Crystal that gets poached would be an Area, not a trail or run since there is no trail or run on the permanently closed area.
If in bound slopes are closed for avy control that could be considered the area.
Can you be more specific by presenting an example(s) of your by your definition to explain your vision better to me?
I understand what you are saying. My original proposal above was to include the clause "within the ski area boundary" in 7b and then you can keep the broad definition of what is closed within the boundary.
My concern is that some areas have gated access to back country that lies outside the permitted area (often indicated by those big, red octagonal stop/closed signs or ropes). If the back country lies outside the permitted area I don't think the proposed law should apply. I do feel that the ski area has the right to restrict access within their permitted area however they see fit.
Honestly, as it think about this a bit more, do you think that 7b would allow a ski area to post a sign and rope off the base of the ski area either pre- or post- season and if a person crosses that closure they would be subject to a $1000 fine? I've definitely been known to hit most of the ski areas prior to their opening day and I'd hate to lose that opportunity.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5186.pdf
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/24/11, 12:36 PM by jj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Beaver
Member
Offline
Posts: 236
|
It would seem that section 7b, per JJ's take, could apply to Kemper's or 410 runs off crystals backside as well, as I believe those are both areas outside the ski area permit boundary with signage indicating permanent closure. Not that I'd necessarily drop into Kemper's anyway, but to read the proposed legislation as written, it would seem that this legislation might be used to constrain access to 410 runs in collusion with NPS, since the underlying momentum between Crystal management and NPS seems to be flowing in that direction already....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The mountain might get 'em, but the law never will
|
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
It seems that Each ski area should have the right to set a price on a fine for people who choose to wander into inbound closed areas. I would set it at $5000. I certainly don't want anyone skiing down rockface when I am skiing Sluiceway or Kelly gap.
It would seem that section 7b, per JJ's take, could apply to Kemper's or 410 runs off crystals backside as well, as I believe those are both areas outside the ski area permit boundary with signage indicating permanent closure. Not that I'd necessarily drop into Kemper's anyway, but to read the proposed legislation as written, it would seem that this legislation might be used to constrain access to 410 runs in collusion with NPS, since the underlying momentum between Crystal management and NPS seems to be flowing in that direction already....
Way to keep on top of it Mr Beaver. But I don't think so because Crystal controls the ropeline access to the Park. The Park can't close entrance to it from that ropeline, unless Crystal denies access, but maybe the park can close it if certain catastrophic conditions apply. Crystal closed Kempers because the park won't let them set charges in the park on top of the bowl, so permanent closure from Crystal's side. Crystal does not have the power to make closures in the park other than access from the SUP area.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
I thought getyourguns comments in the latest news report comment section was funny.
Quote [There should be a stupidity test for skiers and the once that pass do not get to ski at that area. If your need for bravado or bragging rights or beer courage overpowers your common sense then you do not need to be skiing public ski areas. You are not wanted. Stay in the back country where you may die in any way you want to without having the rest of the ski area at jeopardy for your stupidity.]End quote.
Stupidity test for skiers...... mmmh? I think I agree but only if there is one for would be parents aswell. Breeding should only be allowed by people passing the test.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
Stupidity test for skiers......
Is this pass or fail? or are you grading on a curve?...it might make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
I say pass fail, just like the 3 questions at the bridge of death in the Holly Grail.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
What... is the capital of Assyria?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Online
Posts: 1227
|
Honestly, as it think about this a bit more, do you think that 7b would allow a ski area to post a sign and rope off the base of the ski area either pre- or post- season and if a person crosses that closure they would be subject to a $1000 fine? I've definitely been known to hit most of the ski areas prior to their opening day and I'd hate to lose that opportunity. Interesting question.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
I honestly don't get this hate on poachers as long as they are only putting themselves in danger and not patrollers or guests from avalanche danger.
I have always admired poachers that manage to poach a closed line and get away with it as long as the no harm/no foul criteria as outlined above is met.
I have poached and will poach again.
I poached a line that was marked as closed in Japan with my son and he still remembers the thrill of hiding from patrollers and skiing the line and getting away with it in the middle of a busy resort. It was fun and there was no danger to anybody other than ourselves. I am proud to have taught my son how to poach.
Poaching lines and skiing has gone on since ski areas where invented.
This concept of legislating and establishing layer upon layer of rules to protect people from themselves is becoming a distinctly American thing and so far away from the freedom the rest of the world has always associated with the USA. The pussification of America continues unabated by the do-gooders who want to legislate us all into rule abiding robots glorifying in our collective mediocrity and piousness while asking each other if we have done avy 1 or avy 2 classes.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/24/11, 11:15 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
rnbfish
Member
Offline
Posts: 162
|
Hear! Hear! Scotsman
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jj
5Member
Offline
Posts: 55
|
FYI - I sent the following to the senator and got a response back from his legislative assistant. Feel free to write to her at this email address sherman.mary@leg.wa.gov if you have an opinion on the proposed legislation.
MY EMAIL
Sen Kastama,
I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with SB5186.
I have two concerns and suggestions to make your proposal more attractive.
1) As currently drafted, it isn't clear whether 7b applies to closures
only within the ski area boundary or if it would also potentially
apply to closures to back country areas outside the ski area boundary
that may be accessed from the ski area. I think your proposal would
be much improved if you included the clause "within the ski area
boundary" in 7b as in 7a.
2) As currently written, the legislation would allow a ski area to
post a closed sign prior to or after the operating season to prohibit
access to the entire ski area. It is fairly common for back country
skiers like myself to skin up within a ski area boundary prior to or
after the operating season has ended. I don't think the intent of
your bill is to prohibit this activity. I wonder if you'd be willing
to add the clause "during the operating season" or something similar
in 7b?
Thanks for you consideration,
--JJ
THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your suggestions. Senator has asked that we pass your thoughts on to staff for consideration.
Best regards,
Mary Sherman
Mary L. Sherman
Legislative Assistant to Senator Jim Kastama
25th Legislative District
Olympia Office:
Suite 235 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40425
Olympia WA 98504-0425
360-786-7648
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
OK Scots here's a hypothetical for you.
What if, you or perhaps your tracks are seen and followed by someone who thinks they would like to do that as well, however do not posses the skill, awareness or familiarity of terrain that you do? Maybe they ski into a terrain trap by themselves and get hosed, or get cliffed out (or worse washed over one), fall in a tree well, creak, etc, etc...
Just from personal observation, I can say without reservation that once there is one track crossing a rope line you can go back to the same place on the next cycle and find more (some times many) following the example (at least in this region).
I'm not so sure this about hate for poachers as much as it is about the government stepping in once again to save those who aren't smart enough to save themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Well that is how evolution works.... the culling of the less smart or with less physical attributes due to misadventure. I have no problem with it. I think we need more to keep the gene pool refreshed. We are devolving to the lowest common denominator.
The same situation applies to BC lines as well if you follow your logic. You put a ganr line down in the BC or a skin track above cliff bands and people will follow it, so should you not ski that line or put in that skin track in the fear that others will follow it?
I have done that... skiing Nisqually Chute... two skiers went to the right instead of the main chute, my partner and I followed saying" if they can ski it... so can we", line turned out to be very steep with glide crack across choke requiring bill goat..... I named it the Lemming Variation to the Nisqually Chute. Should they have not skied that line in the fear the we would follow?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
Let's hear it for Gravity
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
The next step for ski patrol is to just arm them with handguns.
This makes the poaching more interesting.
Put your money where your mouth is type thing.
I see how the ski areas think that this amendment will be a deterrent, but it ups the adrenaline ante.
Why can't the ski areas just levy their own fines on a scale depending on the location?
Why do they need a law amendment to do this?
The time the legislators have to debate issues like this could be better spent figuring out ways to reduce spending on things that have nothing to do with sustaining a viable Government that covers the infrastructure and basic needs of the people who inhabit the lands.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
Tea Party Joe.. I love it.
Actually, i suppose the area operators could contractually (as part of the pass purchase boilerplate) stipulate a monetary penalty for local rule infraction, but can you imagine the neg vibe from that? Much cleaner for them to wash their hands of it and let it be the law of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
They already do have a fine/penalty... you lose your season pass or day ticket and in some cases the legal right to ski there again without breaking trespass rules. The fact that some people who have been caught go buy day tickets from then onwards and risk a trespass infringement is being used by the legislator as a reason why he thinks the penalty should be even higher.
Baker I believe imposes a $500 fine for those that need ski patrol help if they get stranded in the gnar on Pan Face.
If Crystal patrollers want the fine larger than losing your season pass then they should put their money where thier mouth is and levy a steep fine rather than resorting to government legislation . We're always wanting the goverment to sort out our problems aren't we??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
Well that is how evolution works....
the culling of the less smart or with less physical attributes due to misadventure.
I have no problem with it. I think we need more to keep the gene pool refreshed.
We are devolving to the lowest common denominator.
We agree.
I'm not a fan of the dumbing down that seems have become a regular part of our social fabric, legal system and by extension local and federal government.
The same situation applies to BC lines as well if you follow your logic.
You put a ganr line down in the BC or a skin track above cliff bands and people will follow it, so should you not ski that line or put in that skin track in the fear that others will follow it?
I have done that... skiing Nisqually Chute... two skiers went to the right instead of the main chute, my partner and I followed saying" if they can ski it... so can we", line turned out to be very steep with glide crack across choke requiring bill goat..... I named it the Lemming Variation to the Nisqually Chute. Should they have not skied that line in the fear the we would follow?
I can't comment on your choice to follow or not, I wasn't there, though it sounds like it was sporty.
I'm applying this logic as it relates to a ski area as a business entity, which is what this bill is about.
As a business, ski areas have to follow certain risk management standards (see my comment on dumbing down above for my feelings on this). If you want to ski lifts, you pay for a ticket and accept their rules.
Ski areas cater to a large cross section of skill and ability and because they do these rules apply.
While this may also hold true for BC to some degree, relatively speaking it's to a far lesser extent.
If someone has chosen to take up ski touring, and decides to follow a skin track into terrain they are unfamiliar with,
that is a choice that they can make, and they do so excepting that responsibility, whether they understand what that means or not.
Seriously, I feel this bill is a waste of time and tax payer money, I don't really feel it will change much.
I'm a little surprised that no one from Colorado has spoke up yet.
I've seen first hand ski patrol escort skiers who poached off the mountain to a waiting County Sherif car, where they were arrested and had their gear permanently confiscated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
mmmmh. Interesting rebuttal Gravity and I get part of what you are saying, however explain to me the difference in these two scenarios as regards the culpability of the following skier.
A rope line, a big sign says closed, poacher tracks leading off... less experienced skier decides to follow and gets in trouble.
An open gate, Teddy Bear Chutes, big sign, cliffs, double black, experts only, tracks leading off.... less experienced skier decides to follow and gets in trouble.
In your argument, in the first case it's the poachers fault .
In the second, most of us would admit it's the less experienced skier's fault.
Don't get it, sorry.
BTW: good idea. I have no problem with poachers who are caught ( don't get caught...bigger consequences = more fun)getting their gear confiscated and that is a policy Crystal should adopt if they want to up the deterrent but not via legislation... but please, give us a break from legislating our lives to death.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/25/11, 09:52 AM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
In my view I'm not discussing blame.
I am discussing why these rules exist for ski areas.
What someone does in the BC is their business at least to some degree anyway.
I think we would all agree that there are generally accepted rules of etiquette and safe travel that we all try to be aware of and practice for our own safety and those around or near us.
What I am saying is that the ski area does not want you to poach, even though you may be completely qualified in your skill set to do so because they don't want others who aren't qualified to follow your track and or example.
It's not placing blame, it's saying you can make an educated choice, others not so much.
The rules apply and are enforced to mitigate the risk levels associated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
I understand your point and view.
You're basically saying that a no harm/no foul poach does not exist as even if you are not putting others at risk due to avy danger, you are putting idiots at risk by inadvertantly encouraging them to follow.
It's at that point, our views diverge..... I have no problem with idiots injuring or killing themselves if they show bad judgement in following my example.. that's free will and some of us have no desire to be paragons or even set an example.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
Earlier I did not care if they set a law for fines because my poaching is limited to gray areas. But now I am against it.
The ski patrol was established to help skiers who got injured get to safety. Then it morphed into making the hill safer, then it was setting boundaries and regulating sliders. When does it stop? I realize that giving ski areas the rights to levy fines by law gives them leverage. But at the cost of making uneducated patrollers turn into Barney Fifes' is just down right scary and I don't want to waste my day explaining the rules to them.
I can't tell you the amount of times I have been questioned by newbie patrol. Where did you come from? You know that's a closed area? Uhh..well if you knew, it really is not closed, but gives you the illusion that it is closed. Nuff said!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
Couldn't agree with this more.
I would also hazard a guess that most people who patrol didn't get into it to enforce rules either.
Scots, we do actually agree on the last point.
It's the ski areas, insurance companies and government who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
cornRIDE
Member
Offline
Posts: 140
WWW
|
What I am saying is that the ski area does not want you to poach, even though you may be completely qualified in your skill set to do so because they don't want others who aren't qualified to follow your track and or example.
It's not placing blame, it's saying you can make an educated choice, others not so much.
The rules apply and are enforced to mitigate the risk levels associated.
exactly. the 'lemming factor' is usually (read:hopefully) a one time lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
They already do have a fine/penalty... you lose your season pass or day ticket and in some cases the legal right to ski there again without breaking trespass rules. The fact that some people who have been caught go buy day tickets from then onwards and risk a trespass infringement is being used by the legislator as a reason why he thinks the penalty should be even higher. Baker I believe imposes a $500 fine for those that need ski patrol help if they get stranded in the gnar on Pan Face. If Crystal patrollers want the fine larger than losing your season pass then they should put their money where thier mouth is and levy a steep fine rather than resorting to government legislation . We're always wanting the goverment to sort out our problems aren't we? ?
You make a reasonable point (despite last nights' troll). But I still think the problem needs a broader solution since 'disrespecting' the rope has become a cultural norm, and prescribing a Darwinist eventuallity on all comers misses the needs of the situation when the kid drops in high and cuts a slab loose onto Joe and company. I believe we may be cut from the same cloth when it comes to the degree to which we want government involvement in our lives, but the opposite of rules is anarchy, and anarchy is an attitude not too far from the way ropes are treated these days. As you said, IF the poacher affects no one but himself, then let it ride.. - but that's not the way it works out in the real world, and many young, invincible, impressionable kids, who may not have the good fortune of a mentor to guide them through the proper ways of lawlessness and safety, are drawn into harms way by the images and deeds of the older hip, gangsta, cool players,in the world that they did not create, but that they are obliged to navigate. Yeah, I hate to do it by prescribing another rule, State run or otherwise, but dialing back behavior that otherwise often impacts others is something I can support. I'd be all ears for an effective alternative, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
It wasn't a troll David, I honestly do feel that way and was just expressing my views the same way you do.
Again, find another way to reach the same level of deterrent the ski area and patrollers want but don't use government legislation.
Confiscate gear or get the sheriff to do so.. or levy a fine and state same in the purchase agreement ( although collection could be difficult)
I should imagine that the prospect of getting all your ski gear confiscated would be a huge deterrent to the average young buck.
Your argument remind me of ones we heard when they were trying to protect the young and impressionable from the decadence and lawlessness and bad liefstyle choices of that demon "rock and roll" and the Rolling Stones back in the day.
You want to legislate that we all have to live our lives so that our behaviour is constrained to the social norm at a given time and the reason being that we must all set an example for the young.
I think you may have become a "fuddy duddy".
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/25/11, 11:19 AM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
exactly. the 'lemming factor' is usually (read:hopefully) a one time lesson.
Exactly.
If you survive your first lemming.. you probably won't repeat it.
If you kill yourself on your first lemming.... you definitely won't repeat it.
Same outcome... I'm fine with that.
but you want to prevent a lemming experience in the first place by legislating against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
davidG
Member
Offline
Posts: 723
|
I like your suggestion, just fine. I do find that I view these sorts of things differently depending on my age reference. Were my parents and the social collective concerned for my safety, or did they just disapprove of the '60s ? I have no disapproval over the concept of poaching a line except to the extent that it may affect others in a bad way, and I'm going to include the safety of the immature perpetrators in that group. Beyond that, let 'er rip..
Maybe not quite dude-like, but also not (yet) quite dudd-like..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Maybe we should ban hikers from anywhere that there is a potential threat to surface water?" [courtesy Newtrout, 2011]
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
I like your suggestion, just fine. I do find that I view these sorts of things differently depending on my age reference. Were my parents and the social collective concerned for my safety, or did they just disapprove of the '60s ? I have no disapproval over the concept of poaching a line except to the extent that it may affect others in a bad way, and I'm going to include the safety of the immature perpetrators in that group. Beyond that, let 'er rip.. Maybe not quite dude-like, but also not (yet) quite dudd-like..
BTW you should read the Keith Richards autobiography about his life with the Stones.... wow!
There I go just like the "Did you read" episode on Portlandia.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
But at the cost of making uneducated patrollers turn into Barney Fifes' is just down right scary and I don't want to waste my day explaining the rules to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster
Member
Offline
Posts: 500
WWW
|
Prohibition of stupidity never works.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
My Senator has contacted me and suggested that I attend the public input session to put my 2cents in. Well I got her email today and the public input meeting was last Monday.
I called on this and they said to send my comments to the originator of the bill. I said I don't trust that the originator will listen to my concerns. So there is a Senator overseeing the Bill Senator Ranker. That is who I will include my responses to on the bill.
I would CC your Senator, Senator Kastama and Senator Ranker ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov
I would like to hear your concerns that you are willing to submit to your Senator if you want to PM me.
Please be specific-Bullet point reason, follow with a paragraph of reason against it, can you keep it to a paragraph?
Edit***
Second thought, I would like to hear your concerns so if there is something I am missing I can add it my information, but please write/email your Senator ASAP and CC Senator Ranker and Senator Kastama.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/27/11, 10:33 AM by Joedabaker »
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
ccoulon
5Member
Offline
Posts: 5
|
The exact wording from the bill authored by Senators Kastama, Delvin, and Eide that seems to be most controversy is:
"7(b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars."
Kastama has claimed that this bill will not affect backcountry skiiers at all; however, the poor construction of this statment makes its final purpose vague. In essence it is saying that any "ski area operator" has the ability to post a sign reading as "closed" anywhere and that any perpetrators would then be subject to a hefty fine. This can include inboud signs as well as those on the border of ski resorts. While Kastama believes this will only affect in bounds skiiers, what is to prevent ski area management from taking this a step further in the future and attempting to prevent backcountry access (into public lands) from their resort in an effort to further distance themselves from liability for backcountry goers. i.e. accessing Silver peak, Radio mountain or even the Pacific Crest Trail to name a few, via a resort.
This bill will not be used primarily to save lives, but to protect ski resorts from liability. By allowing them to determine what is "acceptable" terrain for the rest of us. It is not hard to fathom that these resort's primary interests are themselves and their own earnings, not the freedoms of skiiers and other alpinists. The state legal sytem should not be wasting its time right now saving private ski resorts from litigation cases that are already mostly addressed through the use of liability waivers and current trail markings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
trees4me
Member
Offline
Posts: 465
|
Stupid policies and their enforcement is why I don't ski inbounds much anymore. If I want to go ski a line that is safe and me skiing it effects no one else, why shouldn't I be able to?
What we need to do is start the Cascade Air Force!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
chill people, skiing is fun
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Stupid policies and their enforcement is why I don't ski inbounds much anymore. If I want to go ski a line that is safe and me skiing it effects no one else, why shouldn't I be able to?
What we need to do is start the Cascade Air Force!
Exactly! How about a TAY Backcountry Cadre, were we poach lines, skin up groomers, demand free use of toilets, parking and access to the BC. We could have badges/patches..... like the JHAF. Once you have proven yourself by poaching Kempers after skinning up Powder Bowl when it's open ...somebody quiety gives you a TAY BAckcountry Cadre patch in the gondola!
Instead of Swift, Silent, Deep, our motto could be Smug, Superior, Drugged.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
Bwahahahahahah!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
BillyTheMountain
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
WWW
|
"Crystal" is just a bunch o folks running a ski resort. The demons behind this incremental erosion of your civil rights is CNL REAL ESTATE TRUST, and they appear to me to be a ski area monopoly. They care less about you or Crystal.
1.
I believe that when they BOUGHT Crystal, the CONTRACT they signed to take over the lease includes the CURRENT REGULATIONS. What CNL is doing is buying up ski resorts and then SETTING OUT to change the terms of the GD contract! The corporation should/MUST follow the terms of the lease as it was when they acquired Crystal.
They are tricky, they are little piggies in cubicles in West Virgina scratching there way up the corporate ladder. They have NO INSIGHT into our good intentions and NW ski culture. They will incrementally destroy it so they can buy a new car for there daughter in Brandice University
2.
RFID will make it so they can EASILY mail you a ticket. You will not even be stopped up skiing, you will not even know what happened. They can install a tower sentry and just have a remote setting to change the sentry at will. Or they will be able to "see" you from a satellite and issue the ticket that way.
The ski patrol will have nothing to do with this is my guess. But they MAY use them at first. There is WAY to much DANGER to a ski patroller issuing a ticket. To much room for lawsuits and property destruction and getting beat up, tazered, or shot.
Each person has 3 to 8 RFID chips on them, skiers probably have more like 20 RFID devices on them NOW TODAY, they don't even need to chip you.
3.
They will soon have SECURITY PERSONEL on the ski slopes! The Ski Patrol will become rescue only. The security personnel will be contractors separate from the Ski Resort so that the ski resort will NOT be liable, in fact, nobody will be liable because they set it up that way. We have this scenario RIGHT NOW at Alpental and we have cameras and secret visitors invading our snow church.
There is so much more to say about this but I am tired of being attacked everytime I warn folks or mention this sh*t.
The Freedom Of The Hills is no more. Sorry Harvey, K2, Combs, Carl and all the other (deceased) ski pioneers. It appears that we are just a bunch of plastic corporate pundits and polluters that can't even take care of our own mountains. Pathetic.
Good luck,
BillyTheMountain
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/27/11, 08:48 PM by BillyTheMountain »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
BillyTheMountain
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
WWW
|
Um, Boyne owns Crystal.
CNL owns the ski areas on Snoqualmie Pass.
CNL IS the parent company of Boyne.
There is ALWAYS a parent company.
However, NEITHER nor any of them OWN Crystal or Alpental, they have been entrusted to take care of OUR PUBLIC LAND. That was our first mistake.
Kindest regards,
BillyTheMountain
QUESTION: What does the symbol resemble on the bottom of the gondola at Crystal? HINT: Its not a snowflake.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
snoqpass
Member
Offline
Posts: 210
|
"Crystal" is just a bunch o folks running a ski resort. The demons behind this incremental erosion of your civil rights is CNL REAL ESTATE TRUST, and they appear to me to be a ski area monopoly. They care less about you or Crystal.
1.
I believe that when they BOUGHT Crystal, the CONTRACT they signed to take over the lease includes the CURRENT REGULATIONS. What CNL is doing is buying up ski resorts and then SETTING OUT to change the terms of the GD contract! The corporation should/MUST follow the terms of the lease as it was when they acquired Crystal.
They are tricky, they are little piggies in cubicles in West Virgina scratching there way up the corporate ladder. They have NO INSIGHT into our good intentions and NW ski culture. They will incrementally destroy it so they can buy a new car for there daughter in Brandice University
2.
RFID will make it so they can EASILY mail you a ticket. You will not even be stopped up skiing, you will not even know what happened. They can install a tower sentry and just have a remote setting to change the sentry at will. Or they will be able to "see" you from a satellite and issue the ticket that way.
The ski patrol will have nothing to do with this is my guess. But they MAY use them at first. There is WAY to much DANGER to a ski patroller issuing a ticket. To much room for lawsuits and property destruction and getting beat up, tazered, or shot.
Each person has 3 to 8 RFID chips on them, skiers probably have more like 20 RFID devices on them NOW TODAY, they don't even need to chip you.
3.
They will soon have SECURITY PERSONEL on the ski slopes! The Ski Patrol will become rescue only. The security personnel will be contractors separate from the Ski Resort so that the ski resort will NOT be liable, in fact, nobody will be liable because they set it up that way. We have this scenario RIGHT NOW at Alpental and we have cameras and secret visitors invading our snow church.
There is so much more to say about this but I am tired of being attacked everytime I warn folks or mention this sh*t.
The Freedom Of The Hills is no more. Sorry Harvey, K2, Combs, Carl and all the other (deceased) ski pioneers. It appears that we are just a bunch of plastic corporate pundits and polluters that can't even take care of our own mountains. Pathetic.
Good luck,
BillyTheMountain
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gravitymk
Member
Offline
Posts: 406
|
CNL IS the parent company of Boyne.
There is ALWAYS a parent company.
However, NEITHER nor any of them OWN Crystal or Alpental, they have been entrusted to take care of OUR PUBLIC LAND. That was our first mistake.
Kindest regards,
BillyTheMountain
QUESTION: What does the symbol resemble on the bottom of the gondola at Crystal? HINT: Its not a snowflake.
Some times it's hard to believe the messenger, when the message is always crying that the sky is falling.
Regarding CNL being the parent company, prove it:
About CNL Income Properties Inc. CNL Income Properties Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns a portfolio of 71 properties in the United States and Canada in the lifestyle and recreation sectors. Headquartered in Orlando, Fla., CNL Income Properties specializes in the acquisition of golf courses, ski resorts, marinas, campgrounds, merchandise marts, destination retail and entertainment centers and attractions. For more information, visit www.cnl.com. About Boyne USA Resorts Boyne USA Resorts is the owner/operator of geographically diverse four-season destination resorts and day-ski areas located near major metropolitan areas. The business has been overseen by the Kircher family since 1947 and is the largest family run four-season resort company in North America. The founder, Everett Kircher, is recognized within the ski community as a pioneer and visionary who possessed a deep passion for winter sports and the outdoors and in leading Boyne USA?s team, his children are carrying on this tradition. Along with operating Brighton, UT, Cypress Mountain, B.C. and Gatlinburg Sky Lift, TN, Boyne USA Resorts owns Big Sky Resort in Montana, Crystal Mountain in Washington, and Michigan?s premier active lifestyle resorts ? Boyne Mountain and Boyne Highlands and the distinguished lakeside destination - The Inn at Bay Harbor ? A Renaissance Golf Resort, including Bay Harbor Golf Club and Crooked Tree Golf Club. For more information, visit www.boyneusaresorts.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyne_Resorts
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/28/11, 01:08 PM by gravitymk »
|
Logged
|
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
Randy Beaver
Member
Offline
Posts: 236
|
always wear your tinfoil helmet in the BC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The mountain might get 'em, but the law never will
|
|
|
trees4me
Member
Offline
Posts: 465
|
always wear your tinfoil helmet in the BC.
It's part of the CAF issue gear. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
chill people, skiing is fun
|
|
|
blitz
Member
Offline
Posts: 314
|
OH THE DRAMA!
This bill about CROWD control:
1. If you knock over a little kid and hurt him and ski away, they will report you to the sheriff - upto $1000 fine (GOOD ON EM!) .
2. If you are sunbathing or skinning in a blind spot and cause and accident - upto $1000 fine (COOL!).
2. If you ski down or skin up an area closed for avi control or grooming - upto $1000 fine (its not fair to the other skiers, DUGHH?!?!) .
4. If get injured skiing rockface or the waterfall or the Baker Cliffs and require a medevac - YOU ARE CAUGHT (otherwise, you just ski away and no one knows) - upto $1000 fine (that wont even cover your helicopter ride).
Crystal patrol is not going to follow you down Kempers to identify you, they dont have the manpower and they dont get paid for it. Sounds more like this takes them out of the loop for policing it. If they put up the signs, and you go there, it is your own fault for breaking the law.
AND if you dont like CROWDs or traffic jams or traffic rules or traffic officers, why not just ski the backcountry !?!?
Resorts will NEVER EVER close bullion basin, red mountain, snowqualamie slot, interglacier, blewet pass (the possibilities are endless)...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
alisa
|
|
|
Snowolf
5Member
Offline
Posts: 86
|
Exactly. Read the text of the proposed bill. There's no mention of snowboarders anywhere.
They use the term "ski" to be all inclusive meaning skiers and snowboarders. There are plenty of skiers who are morons and assholes too, it is not just snowboarders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Team Wally
Member
Offline
Posts: 250
|
Here's a sign laying out one Utah county's take, spotted at SnowBasin 2-11
|
Keeping the dream alive for Newbies and JONGs the world over.
|
|
|
Plinko
Member
Offline
Posts: 437
|
They use the term "ski" to be all inclusive meaning skiers and snowboarders. There are plenty of skiers who are morons and assholes too, it is not just snowboarders.
Snowwolf,
I'm not picking on snowboarders, (I'm a part-time 'boarder myself). I was stating the fact that the wording of the proposed bill is $h*tty and full of gaping holes. Laws need to be very precise and specific, with no "all inclusive meanings". So far, this proposed bill is severely lacking, and remains an unnecessary waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
I sent a letter to every state senator a couple weeks ago, along with a series of my objections. I looked at the legislative website and there seems to be no movement on the bill right now. Maybe it will get benched back to committee and delay it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Hyakbc
5Member
Offline
Posts: 68
|
It passed. 43 to 5 vote. Boo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Welcome to TAYLANDIA. Unicorn served daily.
|
|
|
|
|
snowrider253
5Member
Offline
Posts: 10
|
Since this bill applies to closed areas within the ski area's permit boundary, it doesn't apply to their BC gates. So not really a big deal to most TAYers since MOST of us would never ski into a permanent closure area such as Rock Face or Kemper's, or into an area that might be undergoing avy control such as Bear Pits when gates are closed.
However, I'd be in favor of all ski areas adopting the same BC gate policy as Mt. Baker: No beacon/shovel/probe/partner/knowledge? No exit or re-entry. And post some big, ominous signage too.
|
 bc.gif (23.99 KB, 364x537 - viewed 242 times.)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1753
|
The revision is a bunch of crap.
I wrote to every Senator and explained the need to bring this back to committee and revise the language. Even my very own Senator voted for it.
It smells to high heaven of political back scratching. I doubt that the majority of Yea voters really know the implications of this amendment. Just as long as they can get their pet projects passed down the road.
Pretty sad piece of legislation, so vague. It amazes me, the time and energy put into passing such crap legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
RonL
Member
Offline
Posts: 362
|
pretty sure sb5186 passed yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.7 seconds with 20 queries.
|
