|
|
|
|
|
|
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 6742 times)
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1748
|
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: 1748
|
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: 1748
|
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: 722
|
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: 1748
|
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: 1748
|
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: 3169
|
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
Offline
Posts: 1226
|
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: 3169
|
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: 3169
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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 0.247 seconds with 20 queries.
|
NSP_INVESTIGATOR.jpg
