Jens Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) With the new proposed bill in Olympia right now, should many of us that use the Alpental Backcountry for ice climbing and skiing be worried? From what I've heard, the proposed bill gives the ski areas the power to call in and have charged anyone going anywhere closed a misdemeanor and a $1,000 fine. Technically, Alpental has said that all uphill traffic on the tooth side of the Valley from the upper lot is "closed". Even if one were to skin or snowshoe in on the snow lake trail side, the only practical ski out is on the other side (the "closed" side) of the valley. If the backcountry above is closed (as it often is), how would this apply? Should we all be calling our representatives in Olympia right now and urging them to vote no? This Bill is far more than just being about some teenage snowboarder who ducks a rope. It has some language that is pretty scary. Edited April 7, 2011 by Jens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I would like to see the actual language of the bill. I would think it would limit who could be charged to those who are ticket / pass holders. How far does the Alpy ski area extend out the ridge toward the Tooth / Pineapple Pass? The standard route of uphill traffic in the area would go further west of Alpy's purvue I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 "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." http://www.nwbroweather.com/2011/02/senate-bill-5186-passes/ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankazoid Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's national forest land. so wtf? Alpental's property ends at the backcountry gates. Currently, if you duck a closed gate and ski, and you get caught you will be blacklisted from riding the lift at alpental. This must now mean that if you duck a gate, end up needing rescue or get caught, you will be blacklisted and the new info above...? does that sound about right? If you did'nt start out on a chairlift I don't think you have much to worrie about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Operative language is "confines of a ski area." None of its Alpy's land. As you said, its NSF. "Ski area" would pertain to areas where patrol performs avy control. They should be able to close those areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 the bill says "a person shall not". It doesn't say it has to be a ticket holder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I don't see anything unreasonable about that. Operative language is "confines of a ski area." None of its Alpy's land. As you said, its NSF. "Ski area" would pertain to areas where patrol performs avy control. They should be able to close those areas. The bill doesn't say "confines of a ski area". Someone in the testimony uses that formula, but there could be an area of gray such as an access road through the ski area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankazoid Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Anyhow, just be aware that if you are up there in the morning before opening, and it has snowed 4'' or more or have had heavy rain, they will be blasting. If you guide your actions by this you should be clear. This does not freak me out by any means. Basicly stay safe, and youll stay out of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyro Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Kastama said the bill got off to a rough start this session because many people did not understand the difference between closed areas and out of bounds or backcountry areas. He said the bill only addresses closed areas because those are the areas that pose a real threat to skier safety. “I love skiing, and I understand people wanting to go backcountry skiing,” he said. “This is not a bill about that.” From http://uwire.com/2011/03/23/bill-could-restrict-skiing-in-washington/ I don't see a problem with ski resorts being able to keep people out of areas that they determine to be hazardous. If people don't want to be told to stay out of an area then they can go into the back country and make their own decisions about what slopes are safe or not. Wasn't there just recently some kid at Stevens that went into a closed area and was killed by an avy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 If what Kastama says is true roped off areas that are out of bound but accessible from the inbound area wouldn't be affected by the bill, which seems odd as this scenario certainly involves many if not most incidents. All these distinctions certainly aren't apparent from the verbiage in the bill. As for Alpental, only the Denny mtn SE bowl would be involved (the inbound area), whereas the Tooth-Bryant basin is considered backcountry and would therefore be excluded by the bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.