french_fry
Active member
I side with everyone here, but there's something I still don't get.
What exactly is Grouse's boundary policy?
From the sounds of it, it is similar to Whistler's "Closed area" policy. Do they have the right to prosecute someone on the basis that someone leaves the ski area boundary, as opposed to simply imposing a ban on the use of their facilities?
Were verbal warnings really issued? I think someone mentioned it earlier, but putting myself in the yeller's shoes, if something terrible happened to the skiers concerned, I would probably have been in a very bad place right now... The guys were obviously experienced and didn't need a rescue, but I'm guessing whoever might have issued a verbal warning could not know that. If that's what happened, then I can't blame Grouse too much for dispatching NSR (I'm not putting the skiers at fault either).
Being billed just sounds ridiculous, I hope all the shredders involved see something positive arise from this.
What exactly is Grouse's boundary policy?
From the sounds of it, it is similar to Whistler's "Closed area" policy. Do they have the right to prosecute someone on the basis that someone leaves the ski area boundary, as opposed to simply imposing a ban on the use of their facilities?
Were verbal warnings really issued? I think someone mentioned it earlier, but putting myself in the yeller's shoes, if something terrible happened to the skiers concerned, I would probably have been in a very bad place right now... The guys were obviously experienced and didn't need a rescue, but I'm guessing whoever might have issued a verbal warning could not know that. If that's what happened, then I can't blame Grouse too much for dispatching NSR (I'm not putting the skiers at fault either).
Being billed just sounds ridiculous, I hope all the shredders involved see something positive arise from this.
