House Bill 5186

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.

I think the bill could be improved by adding that NSP investigators can get 10% of the fine as a reward for a reporting leading to a successful capture.
A whole new business could develop... Poacher bounty hunters..... like Bounty Hunter "Dog "on that reality show.

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.

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?

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?

apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.45.020

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?