House Bill 5186

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.

We agree.
I'm not a fan of the dumbing down that seems have become a regular part of our social fabric, legal system and by extension local and federal government.

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?

I can't comment on your choice to follow or not, I wasn't there, though it sounds like it was sporty.

I'm applying this logic as it relates to a ski area as a business entity, which is what this bill is about.
As a business, ski areas have to follow certain risk management standards (see my comment on dumbing down above for my feelings on this). If you want to ski lifts, you pay for a ticket and accept their rules.
Ski areas cater to a large cross section of skill and ability and because they do these rules apply.

While this may also hold true for BC to some degree, relatively speaking it's to a far lesser extent.
If someone has chosen to take up ski touring, and decides to follow a skin track into terrain they are unfamiliar with,
that is a choice that they can make, and they do so excepting that responsibility, whether they understand what that means or not.

Seriously, I feel this bill is a waste of time and tax payer money, I don't really feel it will change much.

I'm a little surprised that no one from Colorado has spoke up yet.
I've seen first hand ski patrol escort skiers who poached off the mountain to a waiting County Sherif car, where they were arrested and had their gear permanently confiscated.

mmmmh. Interesting rebuttal Gravity and I get part of what you are saying, however explain to me the difference in these two scenarios as regards the culpability of the  following skier.

A rope line, a big sign says closed, poacher tracks leading off... less experienced skier decides to follow and gets in trouble.

An open gate, Teddy Bear Chutes, big sign, cliffs, double black, experts only, tracks leading off.... less experienced skier decides to follow and gets in trouble.

In your argument, in the first case it's the poachers fault .
In the second, most of us would admit it's the less experienced skier's fault.

Don't get it, sorry.


BTW: good idea. I have no problem with poachers who are caught ( don't get caught...bigger consequences = more fun)getting their gear confiscated and that is a policy Crystal should adopt if they want to up the deterrent but not via legislation...  but please, give us a break from legislating our lives to death.

In my view I'm not discussing blame.
I am discussing why these rules exist for ski areas.

What someone does in the BC is their business at least to some degree anyway.
I think we would all agree that there are generally accepted rules of etiquette and safe travel that we all try to be aware of and practice for our own safety and those around or near us.

What I am saying is that the ski area does not want you to poach, even though you may be completely qualified in your skill set to do so because they don't want others who aren't qualified to follow your track and or example.
It's not placing blame, it's saying you can make an educated choice, others not so much.
The rules apply and are enforced to mitigate the risk levels associated.

I understand your point and view.
You're basically saying that a no harm/no foul poach does not exist as even if you are not putting others at risk due to avy danger, you are putting idiots at risk by inadvertantly encouraging them to follow.

It's at that point, our views diverge..... I have no problem with idiots injuring or killing themselves if they show bad judgement in following my example.. that's free will and some of us have no desire to be paragons or even set an example.

Earlier I did not care if they set a law for fines because my poaching is limited to gray areas. But now I am against it.
The ski patrol was established to help skiers who got injured get to safety. Then it morphed into making the hill safer, then it was setting boundaries and regulating sliders. When does it stop? I realize that giving ski areas the rights to levy fines by law gives them leverage. But at the cost of making uneducated patrollers turn into Barney Fifes' is just down right scary and I don't want to waste my day explaining the rules to them.
I can't tell you the amount of times I have been questioned by newbie patrol. Where did you come from? You know that's a closed area? Uhh..well if you knew, it really is not closed, but gives you the illusion that it is closed. Nuff said!

Couldn't agree with this more.
I would also hazard a guess that most people who patrol didn't get into it to enforce rules either.

Scots, we do actually agree on the last point.
It's the ski areas, insurance companies and government who don't.