Crystal Mountain Uphill Travel

Freeski, again trolling does not further the discussion. This is WA State Law, not some arbitrary punishment. If the ski area determines a boundary then it is up to us, the bc community to respect this or lose the 'privilege' of touring uphill through a ski area. The idea you wish to perpetuate that the public lands the ski area is on is open to all goes against the actual law that is enforced by the the sheriff and state troopers. Do you argue with a trooper who pull you over for speeding that it is your right to speed because the highways are public land and we can drive however we want?

When one member of this community disrespects a ski area's request, the ski area cannot perform an inquest, just cut off access so the buffer becomes wider to keep poachers away.

This discussion really needs to focus on how we can develop a local culture of accountability, then Crystal, Alpental, Baker and Stevens can work with us as a trusted partner.
WA State Law
app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79A.45.070
'Skiing in an area or trail closed to the public—Penalty.
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person knowingly skis in an area or on a ski trail, owned or controlled by a ski area operator, that is closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure.'
[ 2011 c 276 § 1.]

Does crystal punish all its paying customers when one of its paying customers ignores the ski area policy

Yeah -- I think so -- look at the trailmap, there are a number of "permanently closed" areas that are that way because of fatalities.

Ski area land is leased for a private purpose. They are given broad discretion to operate their business. They don't need much reason to bar you. Look at the snowboarder suits against Alta as an example. You don't have a right to skin in a ski area.

As for guides, etc. Lots of people die in ski areas. Do you see them advertising that fact? Guides make you sign a liability waiver. It's a contract. It's full of examples of how you may be hurt or killed. The law looks to that document as the critical notice that shifts responsibility from the provider to the purchaser. There is no conspiracy here, you're just clueless how these things work in the real world.

A liability waver is not a legal get out of jail free card. If negligence can be proven it's not worth the paper it's written on. Welcome to the "real world"

Ha! You seem so sure of yourself when you're wrong. Does that usually work for you? Waivers trump negligence. It's recklessness that can overcome a waiver. And that's very hard to prove nowadays. The case law on this topic is mature and the waivers have evolved accordingly. Real world stuff.

Ha! This is kinda fun, like stealing candy from a baby. Problem is your analysis is flawed. These type of leases have been extensively interpreted by courts already, e.g., the snowboarders who sued Alta. And those cases establish my original point, the operator has broad discretion to determine what works best for their business, including who can access the leased property. The reasons they can offer for banning touring will all pass muster IMO (e.g., preservation of snow for paying customers (i.e., the resource that the lease is based upon), skinners don't obey rules (true!), skinners add liability risk to the operation with no commensurate receipt of value, etc.). You seem to think there is some constitutional right to access all public land. That's far from the case. But, by all means I encourage you to start suing ASAP. Talk is cheap. Prove me wrong.

Could you elaborate on your statement with some actual facts?

If what you were saying is true, sounds like the patrol is closing areas that are extremely hazardous, however they're obviously still leaving areas open that are relatively safe.

I have no problem with actual safety concerns being implemented and hazardous areas closed.

....

I believe this incident media.nwac.us.s3.amazonaws.com/media/fil..._accdnt-02-03-01.pdf

Is part of the reason that the Kempers area is permanently closed.

I recall some fatalities in the "Rockface" area in the pre-internet age -- not easy to find online citations for those.