EDIT 02.17.11
90 days from today this law will take effect. So next year, if you go “out of bounds” and are “caught” and “identified” you will be charged with CRIMINAL TRESSPASS 2ND DEGREE and subject to a $1000 fine.
Follow this bill here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5186
Here’s the text from the new law. Source
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 9A.52.080 and 1979 ex.s. c 244 s 13 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he or she knowingly:
(a) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree; or (b) Skis in an area or on a ski trail that is closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
Here’s the video of the Senate Natural Resources & Marine Waters Committee discussing the Bill. From this morning:
Here is the text from the Senate Bill Report from January, 28 2011. Source
Background: Currently, a ski area operator must maintain a sign system based on international or national standards and the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The signs must advise of certain hazards. Signs must be posted on trails or runs that have been closed by an operator and a person cannot ski on a trail or run which has been designated as “Closed.”
Skiers are required to conduct themselves within the limits of their individual ability and are not to act in a manner that will contribute to the injury of themselves or others.
Summary of Bill: A person is prohibited from skiing 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 violating this provision commits a civil infraction and is subject to a monetary penalty of up to $1,000.
A national ski patrol member who witnesses a violator present in a closed area may conduct an investigation that includes preparing an incident report form and witness statements. This information may be sent within seven days to the county sheriff where the violation occurred or to the Director of Fish and Wildlife. The county sheriff or a fish and wildlife officer may issue a citation to the person violating this provision.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: This bill deals with the areas within the confines of a ski area and hopefully, will prevent someone skiing into an area where avalanche control activities are occurring. Currently, if a sign says an area of the ski area is closed, the person skiing in the closed area can have their pass pulled. Persons are not taking the signs seriously. This bill will let people know that we are serious. We want to avoid costly expenses on rescuing these individuals and paying for unnecessary lawsuits. The bill
should be amended to remove “national” for the ski patrol. Ski areas have ski patrols that are not all national ski patrol members.Persons Testifying: PRO: Senator Kastama, prime sponsor; John Kircher, Crystal Mountain; Paul Baugher, Northwest Avalanche Institute.
Here is the actual RCW Language amendment. Source
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.
(i) A member of the national ski patrol who witnesses a violator present in a closed area may conduct an investigation that includes preparation of an incident report form and collection of evidence or witness statements. Information pertaining to the violation may be remitted within seven days to the sheriff of the county in which the violation occurred or to the director of fish and wildlife.
(ii) The sheriff of the county in which the violation occurred or a fish and wildlife officer as defined in RCW 77.08.010 may issue a citation to a person who violates this subsection (7)(b).
Related Posts:
Unlike Colorado, Utah, California and many other States, Washington has enjoyed ...
The owner and ski patrol director from Crystal Mountain testify in support of SB...
Ever been in a fight while snowboarding? Ever seen anyone get in a fight snowbo...
gay-lords.
well i’ll be damned. claim that something is for the safety of the people (even if less than one person needs rescuing per year), and you can make laws happen. this is ridiculous.
And how will they “identify” me? Ask politely?
Takeaway: Don’t ride with your ID, and if you get caught don’t give up your name
…and don’t ride “armed” you could be shot.
Talked with a patroller at crystal yesterday about this. He said there is a huge misunderstanding on this issue. He said that this only applies to 2 areas. The first is an area that is permanently closed, due to hazardous terrain conditions. An example would be the cliff bands by exterminator. The second is areas that are temporarily closed due to current avalanche danger. He said the law is a result of patrollers having to call parents and tell them their son died in an avalanche.
I asked him if you could still skin out of bounds up a ridge and then ski back inbounds and he said yes. (this is not the case in other states with a closed backcountry policy) I haven’t read the report but from what you posted this sounds about right. Am I wrong?
So basically, if you obey the rules at a ski resort this law will not affect you. If you like ducking ropes and skiing in closed areas you will get a fine.
I don’t have a problem with this law. Most of my time skiing is spent touring. I have a class 2 avi cert and know enough to stay safe in the backcountry. However, when I ski at a resort I will take a judgment call from a professional avalanche forecaster over mine any day.
fair enough. but a law (unfortunately) isn’t gonna stop people from ducking ropes. and it isn’t gonna stop people from getting axed by slides.
just read the whole bill. you can still ski out of bounds. you cant ski areas in side a resort that are closed. So if you aren’t in the habit of ducking lines nothing will change for you.
that’s how i read it.
it also reads that ski patrol will now have a slight detective/police role.
most patrolers I know are pretty cool laid back people that don’t want to police people. thier goal is not to stop people from having fun on the mountian, but to let them do so in a safe way.
i would agree. still, $1000 worth of leverage seems ridiculous to me.
balls
if you can ride halfway descent you are ducking ropes… When ski patrol has been all the way to PissPass for 6 hours on the traverse and doing laps, they cant tell me that they are being safe. Their logic is flawed…as for the law… FUCK THE POLICE!
I take it you have never skied with a patroller ALPY. They are pretty dialed into the area. Some guys have 20 + years of knowledge.. Even under “bad conditions” they know what usually slides and were the trigger points are, and can ski an area safely. Just because they are skiing it doesn’t mean it is safe for the public. Also, a lot of field work can go into determining if a slope is safe. This could easily mean 2-3 hrs of ski cutting a slope. If you want to make your own decisions buy some skins and avoid the resorts. That’s were the best terrain is anyways.
Amen Hammond…. Yesterday….snakedance was open at noon…nothing else. Elevator was solid, nothing sliding. Ski patrol doing laps, but nowhere to be seen. I appreciate being careful, but give me a break. My opinion is, fuck the alpental expansion. Make everything outside of snakedance out of bounds. Actually employ some people at a couple checkpoints to check if people are beeping and have a shovel, probe. Leave it at that. Works for other mountains.
Jim just because you have a level 2 avi cert doesn’t mean shit in the backcountry, sidecountry or frontcountry. Conditions change rapidly and you never know what’s going on under the snow. The law is lame and all about liability when people die and ski areas get sued.
exactly…i’d be willing to bet $5 that this has something to do with pressure from insurance carriers. next thing you know the insurance companies are gonna be flexing on tree wells.
BSLASHING JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW ABOUT THREE COUNTRIES DOESN’T MEAN SHIT ABOUT JIM, AND HIS CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA MARKETING TYPE STYLES. GO FUCK YOURESELV BSLASHING
BSLASHING YOURE WRISTS IS MORE LIKE IT
How often are ski patrollers calling parents to say their kid died in an avalanche? Not very often.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? If you need to be rescued, you should have to pay for it. Why punish me for some other dumb-ass’ actions. It reminds me of that woman that spilled coffee on herself and then sued McDonald’s because the coffee was hot. Well No Shit. Kircher is a deuche.
Sounds like “a” needs to do more shredding and less interweb bashing. Superior B