Criminalizing out of bounds?

[legalskier]

Vt. Bill would fine skiers for leaving trail
... As written now, the bill would add language to the existing statute on unlawful trespass and make it illegal to use the “facilities of a ski area to access terrain outside the ski area’s open and designated ski trails (if) as a result, (the skier) must be rescued by a rescue organization.” ...

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130217/NEWS01/702179907

 

[St. Bear]

I'm ok with this, mainly because of this:

As written now, the bill would add language to the existing statute on unlawful trespass and make it illegal to use the “facilities of a ski area to access terrain outside the ski area’s open and designated ski trails (if) as a result, (the skier) must be rescued by a rescue organization.”

 

[legalskier]

I'm ok with this

I wonder whether the max $500 fine would be in addition to getting charged for the rescue? Could add up to a hefty bill.

 

[Cheese]

Adding the language they're talking about now would be okay but adding any more language could put an end to using a resort lift and trail system to access out of bounds areas. I don't think it's the resorts responsibility to rescue me but it sure is nice getting a lift ride to my secret stash rather than having to hike or skin to it.

 

[andyzee]

Adding the language they're talking about now would be okay but adding any more language could put an end to using a resort lift and trail system to access out of bounds areas. I don't think it's the resorts responsibility to rescue me but it sure is nice getting a lift ride to my secret stash rather than having to hike or skin to it.

So if I ski back country outside of Killington is may or may not be legal, depending on how I got there? I take a Killington lift it ilegal? I hike the appalacian trail and ski out of bounds terrain, it's legal? How do you determine how someone got to the start of their bc ski trip? Or to make it easier to determine, will they eventually just make all back country skiing ilegal?


Slippery slope if you ask me.

 

[St. Bear]

It's a poor headline (in the article, not legalskier's fault). It should read, "Criminalizing out of bounds rescue" or something like that.

Reading the article, it actually sounded similar to the debate about charging people for emergency med evacs.

 

[Cheese]

It's a poor headline (in the article, not legalskier's fault). It should read, "Criminalizing out of bounds rescue" or something like that.

Reading the article, it actually sounded similar to the debate about charging people for emergency med evacs.

Yes. Given that the resort probably has the best response time and perhaps even the best resources, maybe they'd want to get into the "Out of Bounds Rescue" business? I could see lucrative charges paying overtime salaries to ski patrol as well as funding upgrades to clothing, gear and equipment.

 

[ScottySkis]

Just stupid, fine yes.

 

[riverc0il]

I'm ok with this, mainly because of this:

Why are you okay with it? This isn't about paying for a rescue. It makes it "unlawful trespass". A skier should not face a criminal record for skiing past the boundary line of a resort... which many resorts (Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Magic, MRG, Bush, etc.) could be seen as promoting. But it is only unlawful if you get hurt and need rescue? So if you do the same thing and don't get hurt, you are legal? W-T-F.

 

[twinplanx]

This sounds like a step back to the bad ol' days of skiing. Should they also consider banning jumping because sometimes people are
hurt? I read the article and I really don't appreciate the language of the bill. If your are lost and require rescue you should be held liable for the cost.

 

[MadMadWorld]

There is way too much grey area. To enforce this, they would have to prove intent. Which means ski areas would have to spend a hell of a lot of money on signage, boundary markers, etc. Do you really think they want to do that?

 

[St. Bear]

Why are you okay with it? This isn't about paying for a rescue. It makes it "unlawful trespass". A skier should not face a criminal record for skiing past the boundary line of a resort... which many resorts (Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Magic, MRG, Bush, etc.) could be seen as promoting. But it is only unlawful if you get hurt and need rescue? So if you do the same thing and don't get hurt, you are legal? W-T-F.

Then have the rescued skier/boarder foot the bill. Same effect, no criminal record.

 

[BenedictGomez]

So....... no castrations then?

 

[St. Bear]

So....... no castrations then?

The ultimate deterrent.

 

[riverc0il]

Then have the rescued skier/boarder foot the bill. Same effect, no criminal record.

Indeed. But that is a different thread and a different topic and a different piece of proposed legislation.

 

[fbrissette]

Why are you okay with it? This isn't about paying for a rescue. It makes it "unlawful trespass". A skier should not face a criminal record for skiing past the boundary line of a resort... which many resorts (Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Magic, MRG, Bush, etc.) could be seen as promoting. But it is only unlawful if you get hurt and need rescue? So if you do the same thing and don't get hurt, you are legal? W-T-F.

That's not how I read the article. It says it is illegal if you have to be rescued.

As to whether or not they can prove if the skiers entered the backcountry from the resort,I think it would be quite obvious. The problem dudes will have no backpack, no skins and no skills to get themselves out of trouble outside of a phone. Serious backcountry skiers will only need help in case of a serious injury.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[riverc0il]

That's not how I read the article. It says it is illegal if you have to be rescued.

As to whether or not they can prove if the skiers entered the backcountry from the resort,I think it would be quite obvious. The problem dudes will have no backpack, no skins and no skills to get themselves out of trouble outside of a phone. Serious backcountry skiers will only need help in case of a serious injury.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using AlpineZone mobile app

I read it the same... illegal if you have to be rescued which would suggest it is not illegal to do so if you are not rescued. That makes no sense to me. Criminalize an act under a specific condition of requiring help? The issue I have is the wording of "illegal" -- I don't think that will hold up in court. Charge some for a rescue, go ahead. But you can't label it illegal ONLY IF you get hurt and need a rescue. That is complete non-sense.

Also, this hits closer to home than backcountry. The wording suggests simply skiing outside of the resort boundary. By that measure, anything off the Chin at Mansfield, the Dip at Jay, BB's at Smuggs, 20th at MRG, etc. would all be included. Not many people using lift assistance and carrying full BC gear for those areas. But under the existing wording, an injury requiring rescue would be an illegal act of unlawful trespass.

Just fine people requiring a rescue. Don't just people's actions. Don't make a judgment call on whether they were prepared or not. If someone needs a rescue outside of ski area boundaries, fine them. Done. This suggestion of making it illegal to get hurt going outside of the ropes is just asking for a court to strike it down.

 

[BenedictGomez]

And now we're beginning to understand how/why government involvement in this wont be a good thing.

 

[ScottySkis]

And now we're beginning to understand how/why government involvement in this wont be a good thing.

It never is a good thing.

 

[fbrissette]

I read it the same... illegal if you have to be rescued which would suggest it is not illegal to do so if you are not rescued. That makes no sense to me. Criminalize an act under a specific condition of requiring help? The issue I have is the wording of "illegal" -- I don't think that will hold up in court. Charge some for a rescue, go ahead. But you can't label it illegal ONLY IF you get hurt and need a rescue. That is complete non-sense.

I'm not a native speaker so may be I don't understand the finer meaning of words but how is that different than: ' It is illegal to speed on the highway, but unless you get caught it's fine' ? Is there a way where you can have a fine for something legal ????

What I like a lot is that true backcountry skiing is totally outside of this proposed regulation since this is strictly aimed at slackcountry, where the problem is. May be somewhere down the line an experienced party will get in trouble after starting their outing from a resort, and they will have to pay a 500$ fine. But in the mean time this might have helped discouraged the hordes of clueless week-end warriors ducking ropes all over the place.

When I hit the backcountry I am always aware of the potential danger. If I ever have to be rescued (and that would be in the case of a crippling injury, because I won't get lost and I am prepared for equipment failure), I'll be happy to pay the 500$ fine to get help (but we had that debate before).