House Bill 5186

This is entertaining

blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/236606.asp

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?   

Not entertaining.  Disturbing.


His email address is:  kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov

Kastama is a volunteer ski patroller at Crystal.

I am very interested to know if you get a response from him.

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.

Jackson hole has a open gate policy 100% of the time and it seems to work

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.