House Bill 5186

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.

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...

Since they are the closest capable entity to reach the effected victims.

thanks for clearing up my ignorance. thanks!

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

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.

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?

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.

apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-...ate%20Bills/5186.pdf