Skier in Jackson Hole arrested for skinning

Some of the arguments presented here don't make sense. The resort has a rule (under their permit) that prohibits uphill travel w/o paying for a lift ticket. But it's national forest - the public should be able to use it w/o paying for it because it's public and the public owns it. Ok, is there a rule prohibiting snowbiles from using the resort? I don't know, but by the same logic snowmobilers should be able to use the resort w/o paying for a lift ticket, regardless of safety, because it's public land. Obviously this wouldn't fly.

You can sue anyone you want at any time but that doesn't mean you will win.  Your being a bit silly with your comparisons and crazy examples. 

I am asking becuase every rule for uphill skinning all seem unreasonable for any all ski resorts when you have people all engaged in a non reckless behavior.

The rules for uphill skinning are there due to the imagination of liability, and I am trying to find where the liability falls between non reckless behavior between people.

For example the accident scenario is real.  It has happened on state highway roads.  In fact to one of the bretheran on this board.  A car flips in bad weather careening off to the side killing a passenger in another separate car.  No one is reckless.  Who is liable?  This has been in this state and never passed suit.  Just an accident.

Since this is the case, then this would be the same case on the slopes, and the resort is not liable.  I don't see how a resort is liable for non reckless behavior of a skinner ever and therefore do not understand the rules.

My  understanding.

Resorts operate on USFS land under a "special use permit".
Under this permit, in the eyes of the FS, the permit holder is responsible for the use of said land following terms and conditions set forth by USFS, during the term of the permit and for operating their business with the proper liability insurance.
In this case the permit holder sets the conditions for use which is necessary to determine and evaluate risk for said insurance. As such the rules they set aren't always up to the area/business but may be set by state statutes and possibly also by conditions set forth by the underwriting insurance companies.

Special use permit = trumps unlimited public access, in the interest of the business being run upon said public lands.

BTW, I find it interesting that some here get so up and arms about this.
In the first place, if these ski areas didn't exist, then neither would many of the roads, parking lots, ski runs and improvements that make the terrain accessible in the first place.
If your argument is that you would ski tour it anyway, what's stopping you from ski touring the thousands of acres that surround the ski areas? If it's because of the cut runs, the grooming or the avi control work, why does anyone owe you this at no charge?

Bottom line, most if not all ski areas are business enterprises, not philanthropic organizations.
If you want to park in the lot and access the land permitted to them to run their business, then you should expect to pay to play.

BTW, I find it interesting that some here get so up and arms about this.
In the first place, if these ski areas didn't exist, then neither would many of the roads, parking lots, ski runs and improvements that make the terrain accessible in the first place.
If your argument is that you would ski tour it anyway, what's stopping you from ski touring the thousands of acres that surround the ski areas? If it's because of the cut runs, the grooming or the avi control work, why does anyone owe you this at no charge?

Well said.

One paid for a lift ticket, the other did not.  When you buy a lift ticket you agree to the conditions of that ticket.  If you simply hike up the mountain you make the ski area more liable for possible lawsuits.  Same reason ski areas don't allow people to go sledding on the slopes when they are closed with their kids.  Someone gets hurt then ambulance chasing lawyers show up.

I see a difference in liability between the lift ticket holding person on the side of the trail compared to the non-lift ticket skinner.  I still don't see a big difference in risk.

If the skinner has a pass or a ticket, then I don't see a big difference in liability either.

I still don't see a big difference in risk.

Presumption of risk may be dictated to the ski area by their insurer and conditions set forth by their policy coverage.