Snow in the PNW 20-21: We may have Corona but Corona doesn't have us!

[altasnob]

Sucks that more people = less access. And what happened to this idea that uphill policy was a "collaboration" between users. Sounds like uphill travelers get shafted for the next four days so that downhill skiers get a better Monday opening. Their twitter post says "uphill travel will be occasionally permitted." If they are trying to cut off Quicksilver access it is time for civil disobedience. I am not aware of any law that requires you to identify yourself to any employee of Crystal. In 2013 Crystal was trying to skirt paying tax by claiming since they didn't have exclusive use of the land, they shouldn't have to pay the tax. The court concluded that Crystal does not have exclusive use of the land, but still has to pay tax.

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/p...%20Opinion.pdf

[altasnob]

RCW 79A.45.070

This law is inapplicable to snowboarders and splitboarders as they are not "skiing:"

RCW 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.

Kircher testified in support of that law when it was passed in 2011. I noticed in the House Bill report it says:

"The bill does not affect backcountry or out-of-bounds skiing, but it would apply to federal lands that are leased."

[Buster Highmen]

I greatly dislike the law, but I seriously question the logic regarding the Crustal permit area not "affecting" bc skiing.
Virtually all access to "bc" areas around Crustal goes through their leased land.

If you park in a lot, you're on their leased land.

[altasnob]

You are correct, the House Bill report is not the law, it is just the legislative history. Just pointing out that if Crystal actually attempted to have someone prosecuted under that law who was hiking up Quicksilver to access non-ski area terrain you could point out the legislative history gave the legislature the impression the law would have no affect on backcountry skiing. In other words, this law is about rope ducking in bounds, not uphill travel to get to the out of bounds.

Here's some more legislative history:

"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."

Why anyone would think it is a good idea to spend the public resources to criminally prosecute a rope ducker, appoint them a public defender paid by the tax payers, and potentially have them serve jail is beyond me. You would have to ask Kircher and Crystal Patrol that question because they are the main sponsors of that law. Why not just ban the person from purchasing a ticket or pass at Crystal for life? That would be a pretty big punishment that would deter the behavior that they are trying to prevent (but that would cost Crystal their customer, so better to throw the scofflaw in jail). As far as I know, no person has been charged with this crime in Washington State history. I get fired up at all these stupid criminal laws we have on the books.

[Buster Highmen]

You are correct, the House Bill report is not the law, it is just the legislative history. Just pointing out that if Crystal actually attempted to have someone prosecuted under that law who was hiking up Quicksilver to access non-ski area terrain you could point out the legislative history gave the legislature the impression the law would have no affect on backcountry skiing. In other words, this law is about rope ducking in bounds, not uphill travel to get to the out of bounds.

I don't read the law that way at all. Nor would I assume Alterras lawyers would be so soft.

"Backcountry" skiing outside of permit areas and access within permit areas are the two differentiated issues. The law makes the distinction between these and fails to distinguish between uphill and downhill. Moreover, given the dynamics of the avie boogy man, it has the same set of risks and consequences.

Here's some more legislative history:

"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."

Why anyone would think it is a good idea to spend the public resources to criminally prosecute a rope ducker, appointing them a public defender, and potentially have them serve jail is beyond me. You would have to ask Kircher and Crystal Patrol that question because they are the main sponsors of that law. Why not just ban the person from purchasing a ticket or pass at Crystal for life? That would be a pretty big punishment that would deter the behavior that they are trying to prevent (but that would cost Crystal their customer, so better to throw the scofflaw in jail). As far as I know, no person has been charged with this crime in Washington State history. I get fired up at all these stupid criminal laws we have on the books.

I argued against the law, both here against other locals who supported it as well as in letters to state reps. I don't think it's a good law, so your argument there is mute as well, but I'll be happy to whine in harmony with you anytime.

I was party to the injunction that stayed the ban from NPS Rainier as well. Hopefully that will stand, despite the CCC.

I once again fail to trust your logic here and will be sure to seek other counsel should I require it. But for now, I'd rather not risk getting banned from Crustal again, when last time it was merely words, not actions.

[The AD]

I don't read the law that way at all. Nor would I assume Alterras lawyers would be so soft.

Me, either. I would assume it means you can't go uphill or downhill within their permit area if that area is signed as being closed regardless of whether your intended destination is outside the permit area or not.

[altasnob]

Alterras lawyers play no role in whether someone gets criminally prosecuted, other than Crystal initially reporting the case to the sheriff. Crystal is in unincorporated Pierce County, which means any charging decision decision would be made by the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney. If Crystal was in an uppity jurisdiction like Bellevue, ya, you would probably get charged, because Bellevue has never seen a criminal charge they do no like. But Pierce County deals with real shit.

I'll try to walk you through my logic again. The legislature passed that law. When passing the law, the legislature (who has probably never skied a day in their life) reads the bill report. The legislature gets told by the bill report that this law they are passing would "not affect backcountry or out-of-bounds skiing." Legislature says, great, I'll vote for this law so long as it doesn't have any affect on backcountry skiing. Crystal uses this law to say people can't uphill travel through Gold Hills and Quicksilver, which means you can not realistically access Three-Way, Morse Creek, Crystal Lakes, ect (i.e. places outside Crystal's permit area). This would be an example of Crystal using this law to affect backcountry skiing. If you were charged with this crime skiing out to Chinook Pass, you could argue that the prosecutor and Crystal are misapplying the law because the legislature only passed the law with the assumption that it would not affect backcountry skiing. The judge would decide if this argument is correct.

Also, this law does not apply to the "permit area" but instead applies to areas "controlled by a ski area operator." Crystal's permit area is huge, the entire valley (East Peak, Bullion Basin, Pickhandle Basin, North side of Three-Way). But one could argue Crystal does not "control" all the area in their permit area.

Even if that specific criminal law does not apply to uphill travel, Crystal can still tell people they can't hike uphill and yank their pass for doing so. There is also the more general Criminal Trespass Second Degree that could possibly be charged, but that is tricky because although Crystal leases the land, they do not have exclusive use.

Historically, Cyrstal has been pretty cool with uphill access. I always wondered with more skiers skinning Quicksilver whether they would force uphill traffic to use the summer hiking trail instead. Years ago, I skinned the summer trail just for the hell of it and it is way slower and more convoluted than skinning Quicksilver. So nice that they let uphill travel use the groomed Quicksilver run and I hope that continues.

[Greydon Clark]

Too many people and not enough parking. We can jerk ourselves off talking about civil disobedience and sticking it to Crystal Mnt or we can push for forest thinning projects and new snow parks.



Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Buster Highmen]

Alterras lawyers play no role in whether someone gets criminally prosecuted, other than Crystal initially reporting the case to the sheriff. Crystal is in unincorporated Pierce County, which means any charging decision decision would be made by the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney. If Crystal was in an uppity jurisdiction like Bellevue, ya, you would probably get charged, because Bellevue has never seen a criminal charge they do no like. But Pierce County deals with real shit.

I'll try to walk you through my logic again. The legislature passed that law. When passing the law, the legislature (who has probably never skied a day in their life) reads the bill report. The legislature gets told by the bill report that this law they are passing would "not affect backcountry or out-of-bounds skiing." Legislature says, great, I'll vote for this law so long as it doesn't have any affect on backcountry skiing. Crystal uses this law to say people can't uphill travel through Gold Hills and Quicksilver, which means you can not realistically access Three-Way, Morse Creek, Crystal Lakes, ect (i.e. places outside Crystal's permit area). This would be an example of Crystal using this law to affect backcountry skiing. If you were charged with this crime skiing out to Chinook Pass, you could argue that the prosecutor and Crystal are misapplying the law because the legislature only passed the law with the assumption that it would not affect backcountry skiing. The judge would decide if this argument is correct.

Also, this law does not apply to the "permit area" but instead applies to areas "controlled by a ski area operator." Crystal's permit area is huge, the entire valley (East Peak, Bullion Basin, Pickhandle Basin, North side of Three-Way). But one could argue Crystal does not "control" all the area in their permit area.

Even if that specific criminal law does not apply to uphill travel, Crystal can still tell people they can't hike uphill and yank their pass for doing so. There is also the more general Criminal Trespass Second Degree that could possibly be charged, but that is tricky because although Crystal leases the land, they do not have exclusive use.

Historically, Cyrstal has been pretty cool with uphill access. I always wondered with more skiers skinning Quicksilver whether they would force uphill traffic to use the summer hiking trail instead. Years ago, I skinned the summer trail just for the hell of it and it is way slower and more convoluted than skinning Quicksilver. So nice that they let uphill travel use the groomed Quicksilver run and I hope that continues.

You keep arguing your side, which is somewhat sophomoric sophistry and expected, except it's just not true that in the last 5 years they've been cool about access. Nor is the distinction between control and permit salient.or tested. Alterras lawyers may do what they're paid to do, including advising the prosecutor. Tell me that never happens.

The law was sponsored by a Crustal volly patrol who may not ski well, but has a presence.

But it is reasonable that an argument would be made that people, in accessing bc areas, will enter areas under avalanche control, which __is__ the goal of the law. That has happened to boot.

Moreover, the language in the law fails to make the distinction you're trying to extend between uphill and downhill skiing, permit and control, sidecountry or backcountry.

You keep going back to the exclusive use issue. If that were the case, I guess we can all just park in A lot? Again, this just seems to be an academic point which we can happily quibble over while we attempt to pry the boot off my car.

The judge would decide your argument is correct? Presumptuous a bit?

As the sagacious M. Clark points out, we need more access. And lifts and ski areas. I just want to go skiing.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You know, you could keep your mouth shut about all the restrictions and legal bullshit but go quietly about your business, staying out of the way of mountain prep and avalanche mitigation work. You know, out of sight, out of mind. I’ve used this approach for years when the mountain is “closed” for uphill travel. I’ve never been hassled, but I don’t act like a clueless and/or entitled asshole.

They do have work to do, and some of it is dangerous. They don’t need to have to worry about clueless and unaware ski tourers getting in the way. That’s what these policies are really about.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[glademaster]

You know, you could keep your mouth shut about all the restrictions and legal bullshit but go quietly about your business, staying out of the way of mountain prep and avalanche mitigation work. You know, out of sight, out of mind. I’ve used this approach for years when the mountain is “closed” for uphill travel. I’ve never been hassled, but I don’t act like a clueless and/or entitled asshole.

They do have work to do, and some of it is dangerous. They don’t need to have to worry about clueless and unaware ski tourers getting in the way. That’s what these policies are really about.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

If your lifestyle requires discretion, be discreet about it.

[Mofro261]

Skinner up Stump farm?

[californiagrown]

If your lifestyle requires discretion, be discreet about it.

Not enough people smoked weed in high school.

[The AD]

Also, this law does not apply to the "permit area" but instead applies to areas "controlled by a ski area operator." Crystal's permit area is huge, the entire valley (East Peak, Bullion Basin, Pickhandle Basin, North side of Three-Way). But one could argue Crystal does not "control" all the area in their permit area.

OK, point conceded on a technicality.

Also:

Heavy snow continues in the Cascade
passes with Snoqualmie pass reporting 9 inches of new snow and
Stevens Pass 6 inches in the last 6 hours. Mount Baker reporting
over a foot of new snow since late Thursday afternoon.

Things are shaping up nicely.

[gnarbro365]

Aaaaaaaaanyways...

It is snowing. 18" at the base of the truck stop ski area this morning. Currently nuking on the hill above Duck Town.

[Dromond]

I must interrupt this legal discussion thread with the fact that it is currently windy AF at Crystal which is not the best indicator of skiing in the short term.

But, it’s good for the base...

[Greydon Clark]

Skinner up Stump farm?

Looks like a significant fire hazard. Need to remove some trees.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[volklpowdermaniac]

Any one want to show me- a PNW newb- around something within 90 minutes of seattle on Monday or Wednesday. Only 2 days off in 15. Former avy worker in CO for many years, nothing too crazy maybe 1-2 hour approach and a couple laps, maybe 1/2-3/4 day route? Shoot me a PM.

[altasnob]

You know, you could keep your mouth shut about all the restrictions and legal bullshit but go quietly about your business, staying out of the way of mountain prep and avalanche mitigation work. You know, out of sight, out of mind. I’ve used this approach for years when the mountain is “closed” for uphill travel. I’ve never been hassled, but I don’t act like a clueless and/or entitled asshole.

Oh, don't worry. I am sure there will be about 800 people being "discreet" and ignoring the uphill travel ban this weekend. Hard to be discrete in an area with 4.2 million people and another mil arriving in the next 20 years. This twitter commenter applauding the uphill ban sums up the direction of my ire:



I am sure these private equity bean counters at these corporate PNW resorts are getting pissed that more and more of their leased parking lots are being filled with non-paying customers. I've been a Crystal paying customer more or less consistently since 2005, with various stints in the 80s as well, but I will always advocate for those non-paying customers right to access their land. We've all been clueless at some point in our life.

[Zeedashbo]

Too many people and not enough parking. We can jerk ourselves off talking about civil disobedience and sticking it to Crystal Mnt or we can push for forest thinning projects and new snow parks.



Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Tell me more.....

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using TGR Forums mobile app

[altasnob]

Here is Crystal Mountain's permit area, granted to Crystal by the Forest Service in 1960. It is essentially the entire valley, including all the modern day backcountry areas and access to areas outside the permit area (save Goat Lake). Backcountry skiers are right to push back on this power grab. Crystal's current permit expires in 2032.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Oh, don't worry. I am sure there will be about 800 people being "discreet" and ignoring the uphill travel ban this weekend. Hard to be discrete in an area with 4.2 million people and another mil arriving in the next 20 years. This twitter commenter applauding the uphill ban sums up the direction of my ire:



I am sure these private equity bean counters at these corporate PNW resorts are getting pissed that more and more of their leased parking lots are being filled with non-paying customers. I've been a Crystal paying customer more or less consistently since 2005, with various stints in the 80s as well, but I will always advocate for those non-paying customers right to access their land. We've all been clueless at some point in our life.

Oh, so Crystal should keep the lots plowed for free for the non customers?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[glademaster]

Oh, don't worry. I am sure there will be about 800 people being "discreet" and ignoring the uphill travel ban this weekend. Hard to be discrete in an area with 4.2 million people and another mil arriving in the next 20 years. This twitter commenter applauding the uphill ban sums up the direction of my ire:



I am sure these private equity bean counters at these corporate PNW resorts are getting pissed that more and more of their leased parking lots are being filled with non-paying customers. I've been a Crystal paying customer more or less consistently since 2005, with various stints in the 80s as well, but I will always advocate for those non-paying customers right to access their land. We've all been clueless at some point in our life.

Just here to point out that you used discreet/discrete incorrectly.

[ridinshockgun]

Oh, so Crystal should keep the lots plowed for free for the non customers?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

With nearly all good winter access to national forest land in our state controlled by ski areas (unless you have a sled), yeah it should be part of the deal to use our public land for profit.

[plugboots]

And I90 is closed again due to “ multiple spin outs blocking the highway”
This is a problem that needs a real fix.