House Bill 5186

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.

Prohibition of stupidity never works.

My Senator has contacted me and suggested that I attend the public input session to put my 2cents in. Well I got her email today and the public input meeting was last Monday.
I called on this and they said to send my comments to the originator of the bill. I said I don't trust that the originator will listen to my concerns. So there is a Senator overseeing the Bill Senator Ranker. That is who I will include my responses to on the bill.
I would CC your Senator, Senator Kastama and Senator Ranker ranker.kevin@leg.wa.gov
I would like to hear your concerns that you are willing to submit to your Senator if you want to PM me.
Please be specific-Bullet point reason, follow with a paragraph of reason against it, can you keep it to a paragraph?

Edit***
Second thought, I would like to hear your concerns so if there is something I am missing I can add it my information, but please write/email your Senator ASAP and CC Senator Ranker and Senator Kastama.

The exact wording from the bill authored by Senators Kastama, Delvin, and Eide that seems to be most controversy is:

"7(b) A person shall not ski on a ski slope, trail, or area that is designated by a ski area operator as closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection commits a civil infraction and is subject to a monetary penalty of up to one thousand dollars."

Kastama has claimed that this bill will not affect backcountry skiiers at all; however, the poor construction of this statment makes its final purpose vague. In essence it is saying that any "ski area operator" has the ability to post a sign reading as "closed" anywhere and that any perpetrators would then be subject to a hefty fine. This can include inboud signs as well as those on the border of ski resorts. While Kastama believes this will only affect in bounds skiiers, what is to prevent ski area management from taking this a step further in the future and attempting to prevent backcountry access (into public lands) from their resort in an effort to further distance themselves from liability for backcountry goers. i.e. accessing Silver peak, Radio mountain or even the Pacific Crest Trail to name a few, via a resort.

This bill will not be used primarily to save lives, but to protect ski resorts from liability. By allowing them to determine what is "acceptable" terrain for the rest of us. It is not hard to fathom that these resort's primary interests are themselves and their own earnings, not the freedoms of skiiers and other alpinists. The state legal sytem should not be wasting its time right now saving private ski resorts from litigation cases that are already mostly addressed through the use of liability waivers and current trail markings.

Stupid policies and their enforcement is why I don't ski inbounds much anymore. If I want to go ski a line that is safe and me skiing it effects no one else, why shouldn't I be able to?

What we need to do is start the Cascade Air Force!

Stupid policies and their enforcement is why I don't ski inbounds much anymore.  If I want to go ski a line that is safe and me skiing it effects no one else, why shouldn't I be able to?

What we need to do is start the Cascade Air Force!

Exactly! How about a TAY Backcountry Cadre, were we poach lines, skin up groomers, demand free use of toilets, parking and access to the BC. We could have badges/patches..... like the JHAF. Once you have proven yourself by poaching Kempers after skinning up Powder Bowl when it's open ...somebody quiety gives you a TAY BAckcountry Cadre patch in the gondola!
Instead of Swift, Silent, Deep, our motto could be Smug, Superior, Drugged.