House Bill 5186

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.

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?

Let's hear it for Gravity

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.

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.

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?????