House Bill 5186

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.

exactly. the 'lemming factor' is usually (read:hopefully) a one time lesson.

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?????

You make a reasonable point (despite last nights' troll).  But I still think the problem needs a broader solution since 'disrespecting' the rope has become a cultural norm, and prescribing a Darwinist eventuallity on all comers misses the needs of the situation when the kid drops in high and cuts a slab loose onto Joe and company.  I believe we may be cut from the same cloth when it comes to the degree to which we want government involvement in our lives, but the opposite of rules is anarchy, and anarchy is an attitude not too far from the way ropes are treated these days.  As you said, IF the poacher affects no one but himself, then let it ride..  - but that's not the way it works out in the real world, and many young, invincible, impressionable kids, who may not have the good fortune of a mentor to guide them through the proper ways of lawlessness and safety, are drawn into harms way by the images and deeds of the older hip, gangsta, cool players,in the world that they did not create, but that they are obliged to navigate.  Yeah, I hate to do it by prescribing another rule, State run or otherwise, but dialing back behavior that otherwise often impacts others is something I can support.  I'd be all ears for an effective alternative, though.

It wasn't a troll David, I honestly do feel that way and was just expressing my views the same way you do.
Again, find another way to reach the same level of deterrent the ski area and patrollers want but don't use government legislation.
Confiscate gear or get the sheriff to do so.. or levy a fine and state same in the purchase agreement ( although collection could be difficult)
I should imagine that the prospect of getting all your ski gear confiscated would be a huge deterrent to the average young buck.

Your argument remind me of ones we heard when they were trying to protect the young and impressionable from the decadence and lawlessness and bad liefstyle choices of that demon "rock and roll" and the Rolling Stones back in the day.
You want to legislate that we all have to live our lives so that our behaviour is constrained to the social norm at a given time and the reason being that we must all set an example for the young.
I think you may have become a "fuddy duddy".

exactly. the 'lemming factor' is usually (read:hopefully) a one time lesson.

Exactly.
If you survive your first lemming.. you probably won't repeat it.
If you kill yourself on your first lemming.... you definitely won't repeat it.
Same outcome... I'm fine with that.
but you want to prevent a lemming experience in the first place by legislating against it.

I like your suggestion, just fine.  I do find that I view these sorts of things differently depending on my age reference.  Were my parents and the social collective concerned for my safety, or did they just disapprove of the '60s ? I have no disapproval over the concept of poaching a line except to the extent that it may affect others in a bad way, and I'm going to include the safety of the immature perpetrators in that group.  Beyond that, let 'er rip..

Maybe not quite dude-like, but also not (yet) quite dudd-like..    

I like your suggestion, just fine.  I do find that I view these sorts of things differently depending on my age reference.  Were my parents and the social collective concerned for my safety, or did they just disapprove of the '60s ? I have no disapproval over the concept of poaching a line except to the extent that it may affect others in a bad way, and I'm going to include the safety of the immature perpetrators in that group.  Beyond that, let 'er rip..

Maybe not quite dude-like, but also not (yet) quite dudd-like..    

BTW you should read the Keith Richards autobiography about his life with the Stones.... wow!
There I go just like the "Did you read" episode on Portlandia.