Says She'd Consider Going Out Of Bounds Again

[FreeRights]

Time to cut off her ski hill pass.

Cut it in two, right in front of her. Send her home.

I don't care if it's to her new condo on the hill. She can't ski or snowboard there any freaking more.

What about everyone before her, Canadians, who've done the same thing and need rescuing?

[Queen K]

Cut theirs up too.

So what about them?

[FreeRights]

Also lets not forget that Whistler actually advertises and encourages the backcountry for skiing and snowboarding.

[yaktak]

skiers and snowboarders choose to go outside of the area they supposed be in, atv ans ski doers have no out of bounds unless go on someones private property

This one really baffles me. Using this logic, a snowmobiler can go up to a ski area boundary for any ski hill and have the time of his life. Get into trouble and have a helicopter rescue and its ok. A snow boarder goes into that same area, has a problem, needs a rescue. He is stupid and needs a rescue, make that *bleep* pay.

I still don't see the difference. They are two persons using BC crown land in different ways. Breaking no laws.

If your going to make a big stink out of this snowboarder, then you better lump in every person who has required a rescue from the woods.

[yaktak]

What bothers me is the double standard.

It should be a user pay system. Whether its each person pays his own rescue bill or yearly fee for everyone that wants to use the back country. I don't have that answer. I just wish people would equally blame all user that require a rescue for the cost of the system.

[Bsuds]

No problem if she wants to go boarding again anywhere in Canada she has to put up a $20,000 bond first.
If she doesn't need rescuing she will get it back.

[yaktak]

No problem if she wants to go boarding again anywhere in Canada she has to put up a $20,000 bond first.
If she doesn't need rescuing she will get it back.

OK, fair enough. But what about everyone else that ventures into the woods for one reason or another? What kind of deposit do they pay?

[GrooveTunes]

It's a toughie, what do you do ?

Charge those who go out of bounds with huge fines and ban them from the mountain ? For that, you'd need someone in authority out of bounds catching people, because if you only charge those who call for help, then they won't call and it wouldn't be "politically correct" to wait til spring and pick up their remains.

This is much like the police calling off car chases when they get to dangerous. Does that not create a situation where a crooks not wanting to get caught to drive dangerously so the police will stop chasing them ?

When I travel I but travel insurance. I don't see why insurance companies are unable or unwilling to offer some back country insurance. It doesn't happen very often really considering the amount of people actually out there. I have yet to be in a situation that would have required a rescue, but if it was offered on yearly basis I would buy it. Even per trip basis for extreme back country travel could be available. I suppose it would have to be mandatory which could be a good thing as it might prevent someone who doesn't want to buy it think twice if they knew they would have to pay for the cost of rescue.

[wanderingman]

="yaktak"]="wanderingman"]
some of the or most of the DAS people whom get lost for one reason or another are TAX payers.This bimbo is a foreigner
and should pay for the search

Not really true, this topic always comes up whenever a skier or snowboarder needs a rescue. Nationality may play a roll in it for you today, but it doesn't seem to in general.

Never said nationality played any roll all I said is visitors as in non tax payers should pay the bill

[LTD]

why don't we just do away with search and rescue problem solved everyone is on their own

[my5cents]

When I travel I but travel insurance. I don't see why insurance companies are unable or unwilling to offer some back country insurance. It doesn't happen very often really considering the amount of people actually out there. I have yet to be in a situation that would have required a rescue, but if it was offered on yearly basis I would buy it. Even per trip basis for extreme back country travel could be available. I suppose it would have to be mandatory which could be a good thing as it might prevent someone who doesn't want to buy it think twice if they knew they would have to pay for the cost of rescue.

Most insurance (for any type of risk) is generally based on an accident or something unforeseen. General hiking etc, I could see, but disobeying rules and crossing into an "Out of Bounds" area, I would think would void any such coverage had it been available.

[Bsuds]

Give someone insurance for getting lost for intentionally going out of bounds is then just giving permission to break the rules.
I wouldn't want to see them have to pay the full cost of rescue but there should at least be a fine of a couple of hundred dollars. (even if they are caught and don't get lost)

[OREZ]

What bothers me is the double standard.

It should be a user pay system. Whether its each person pays his own rescue bill or yearly fee for everyone that wants to use the back country. I don't have that answer. I just wish people would equally blame all user that require a rescue for the cost of the system.

I think that's a very fair and logical point.

I don't get the double standard either.

[my5cents]

Keeping with "usual" government thinking (recycling fees added to purchase prices comes to mind)... a new tax on hiking boots, skis, and snowboards.

[Bsuds]

Keeping with "usual" government thinking (recycling fees added to purchase prices comes to mind)... a new tax on hiking boots, skis, and snowboards.

Don't forget snow shoes and snow mobiles.