Skier in Jackson Hole arrested for skinning

  Your being a bit silly with your comparisons and crazy examples. 

I'm going to quote this for truth.
At least you are consistent.

Bottom line, your supposition that you pay taxes on roads, therefore you have a right to do whatever you want on public land is a flawed argument.

I'm going to quote this for truth.
At least you are consistent.

Bottom line, your supposition that you pay taxes on roads, therefore you have a right to do whatever you want on public land is a flawed argument.

Please re read the thread. I never said I get to do "whatever you want on public land" from my supposition of taxes on roads. I understate "special use permit" ... in fact, please read that again about 5 posts above this one. I support "special use permit" and I understand it.

I am trying to understand this liability issue becuase it does not make sense to me for uphill traffic when the skinner is being responsible and non negligent. Can I do anything about it? I doubt it. Money will trump. I guess I don’t see how the resort can be liable ever.

I see, OK.

I actually believe in Washington State that this is in the RCW's with regard to laws that apply to ski areas. Other states may vary. Also as I earlier stated, it's also possible that the insurance company may have mandated this within their policy restrictions, and as such the USFS would authorize the ski area to enforce it under the terms of their agreement.

Edited to say: I went back to see where I thought I saw mention of uphill travel in the RCW's and I can't find it now.

I did find this on the Steven's Pass site:

Stevens Pass Uphill Traffic Policy:
Due to safety concerns, and in accordance with our Area Operation Plan approved by the Forest Service, Stevens Pass reserves the right to limit up hill traffic within the resort boundary during hours of operation during the operating season. Our operating season is defined by when the mountain first opens for winter operations, until we close for the season.

The alpine resort is closed to uphill traffic during periods of avalanche control, which typically occurs early morning, but may occur any time throughout the day.

Anyone seeking to travel uphill is required to check in with Patrol in the basement of the Granite Peaks Lodge for current updates on potential restrictions. For Employees on the mountain, a radio call to Patrol Dispatch on Channel 2 is the best way to contact Patrol. Traffic volume, special events, and avalanche hazard will be considered when restricting uphill travel. The only exception to this is on-duty employees whose job requires uphill travel.

Foot traffic is not permitted at any time within the permit boundary, including the Nordic Center, outside of designated walking areas.

The Stevens Pass Nordic Center, located five miles east of the summit, accomdates uphill traffic by design for skinning, cross-country and snowshoes on appropriately designated trails. A trail pass from Stevens Pass is required to use the Nordic Center trail system.

BTW, I find it interesting that some here get so up and arms about this.

Perhaps if you read this interesting article you will understand why.
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tie...istic%20group&st=cse
TAY is IMHO a tribal moral community, Not That There Is Anything Wrong With That he hastens to add.
Tribal moral communities can be very positive, supportive and beneficial as a whole as is certainly evidenced by this website and as recent events prove.
However, as the article suggests, they can have detrimental effects if the bias that communities centered around" sacred values " inherently have is not also recognized by the members at the same time.
Therefore it should not be surprising that issues regarding public access to capitalistic ski areas by a person earning their turns who is also aged has such a conformity of response.

Please read the article before throwing stones.

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.

Actually, the reverse may be true.  Most states (WA is one) have recreational use statutes that grant landowners (not sure if this applies equally to operators under a special use permit) considerable immunity from liability if they allow free use of their property for recreational purposes, with two broad categories of exception:
a) If the landowner charges for access, the statute does not apply- businesses have an obligation to undertake due diligence to make things safe, and
b) If an accident arises because of a hazard that is artificial and hidden- like, say, a tiger trap or a mine shaft, the statute does not apply.

It's my understanding that when a ski area accepts your money to let you go play on the slopes, they lose the liability protections afforded by such statutes, and assume significant responsibility for the safety of their customers.  If an accident occurs, the operator's primary legal defense is not in the disclaimer language on the tickets- that's mainly there to discourage people from bringing suits- it's in their ability to demonstrate that they are not materially negligent in causing the accident.  It may be that the operator saw regulating who can do what on a cat-track as part of their due diligence, and on that basis it's probably within their rights to pursue a charge of trespassing, but I doubt this was about his presence exposing the ski area to undue liability- if anything, it sounds like this was about a personality clash.

TAY is IMHO a tribal moral community [...]

Therefore it should not be surprising that issues regarding public access to capitalistic ski areas by a person earning their turns who is also aged has such a conformity of response.

Conformity of response? Which thread are you reading?