 Poster: A snowHead
|
The Sherriff of Summit County - the area of Colorado which covers several major ski resorts - wants big increases in fines for skiers illegally ducking ropes to ski the back-country.
Sherriff John Minor would like the penalty for violating the Skier Safety Act raised from $300 to $1000, in the light of two costly searches for lost skiers near Keystone recently.
This report from 9News.com.
Any comments on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
In society people are always doing dumb things that get themselves hurt/in trouble, and we as a society chose to cover these costs, because we undertand that everyone does dumb things at some point or another in their life. I say bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
ponder, well said. I think those rescued ought to expect to make some kind of contribution towards the costs, but the idea of being fined just for going somewhere potentially dangerous is not consistent with the idea of a free society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Illustrates exactly why law enforcers should never be allowed to become law makers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Evidence that Colorado is getting serious about violations of its Skier Safety Act comes in the news that six sliders at Copper Mountain have been ticketed for entering an avalanche-prone out-of-bounds area. Three of them have also been charged with "third-degree criminal trespassing" for riding lifts without valid passes.
This report from Vail Daily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| ... the idea of being fined just for going somewhere potentially dangerous is not consistent with the idea of a free society. |
But, if by going somewhere potentially dangerous, you cause an avalanche which kills others, surely it would have been better if you had been stopped in the first place.
When you are dealing with people who are demanding rights, but not prepared for the responsibilities of their actions, then sometimes fines can be the only way to prevent them from making selfish decisions that endanger others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, absolutely, which is why I put 'just' in my post, though I should also have added 'to themselves'. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'the mountains' should be free for everyone.. if u want to go off the back of a mountain who is the sherrif to stop you..
the signs are warnings.. the only case to be made is if say you could set off an avalanche onto a piste as has been mentioned already.. otherwise you should be able to go where u want..
equally i would not expect anyone rescuing you to be in any great hurry or to put themselves in any danger ,, i would also expect said rescuee to buy an exceptionally large and expensive round of drinks to fund said rescue..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
CANV CANVINGTON, what if you are skiing on private property?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You get shot.
The new movie Brokeback Mountain - excellent - opens with a scene of two 'cowboys' (actually they get to look after sheep) waiting outside a shack-like office where they can get work. The sign on the door says:
| Quote: |
Trespassers will be shot
Survivors will be shot again |
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, in Scotland all (or most - IIRC some of the mountains around Balmoral at least are excluded) the upland areas have for years had right of freedom to roam - and I assume this means in winter as well as in summer (shame there's not more snow). Recently there was a change in English law to allow something similar (within limits - if anyone wants to elaborate, please do). So property ownership does not necessarily mean denial of access.
I don't know exactly how far the Skier Safety Act restrictions go, but from the comments like this:
| 9news.com wrote: |
Ski areas like Keystone use ropes and warning signs to mark where the boundary is. "It's closed for a reason," says resort spokesperson Amy Kemp. "It isn't supervised, it isn't patrolled, so we recommend people stay in bounds," she said. |
and the Sherrif's quoted comments ("there are snags, fallen trees, people can get hurt" -  big deal  ) it looks like they are trying to shut down all back-country skiing.
When I was in Keystone several years back, the back-country access had a rope across and a warning that you were entering unpatrolled areas, so you went at your own risk - and I saw dozens of people taking that risk (I wasn't up to it at the time myself). That's fine, but do they actually have times when they close the area, and do they then have a different rope/warning to indicate that status? Given the USA's litigious culture I can see that being a minefield - the area is open, but someone gets caught in an avalanche, so they then sue whoever put up the rope for not putting up the right one .
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, fair enough but i thougt we were talking about back country stuff being off limits for safety reasons, not piling through someones garden..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between skiing a closed zone that is within the ski resort's permit area, and leaving that area via a "backcountry access gate".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
in the light of two costly searches for lost skiers near Keystone recently.
|
So don't bother looking for them then. Or charge them that actual cost of SAR. Either of which is less bossy than fining people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
In the US if you want to ski the backcountry there is plenty of opportunity to do so via access from roads etc (often with specific Sno Parks cleared for the purposes of parking). If you choose to do it the easy way via a resort's lifts then its not unreasonable that you respect that resort's rules - a lot of resorts have designated backcountry access gates, still more have unpromoted access (i.e. they keep quiet about it), some have completely closed boundaries. In my opinion closed boundaries aren't a great idea but are sometimes necessary and sometimes there for legal reasons e.g. to prevent trespass or limit resort liabilities . Usually there are a number of resorts in reasonable proximity so if you don't agree with one place's policy why not go somewhere else or skin/hike in yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
In the US if you want to ski the backcountry there is plenty of opportunity to do so via access from roads etc (often with specific Sno Parks cleared for the purposes of parking). If you choose to do it the easy way via a resort's lifts then its not unreasonable that you respect that resort's rules - a lot of resorts have designated backcountry access gates, still more have unpromoted access (i.e. they keep quiet about it), some have completely closed boundaries. In my opinion closed boundaries aren't a great idea but are sometimes necessary and sometimes there for legal reasons e.g. to prevent trespass or limit resort liabilities . Usually there are a number of resorts in reasonable proximity so if you don't agree with one place's policy why not go somewhere else or skin/hike in yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
