Skiing and african slavery are two entirely unrelated issues. Unfortunately, you missed the entire point.
The point is that the choices you make with how you expend your time and money have a material impact on how society is structured. Cash flow is raw representative democratic action. By purchasing a Grouse pass you are tacitly acknowledging that you support their decisions, or are at least comfortable enough with them to be bedfellows.
It deals with the potential purchase of gold from a person with known human rights abuses and who is a bedfellow of Robert Mugabe. Rather than purchase the gold below market prices, it was declared that:
“We have no interest in buying gold from people running a country where people are dying of cholera or from Congo, where the money from any deal would be used to buy arms to kill more people,” he said. “This is bloody gold. These people are criminals.”
The point is that to maintain a business relationship with an entity is to endorse the code of conduct that entity operates by. The situation is not nearly of the same gravity as the Grouse fiasco, but the moral is the same. By purchasing a Y2Play pass, you acknowledge that you are comfortable with how Grouse mountain runs their business and treats skiers on the mountain.
I challenge your supposition that the Grouse fiasco does not negatively contribute to the ski industry.
North Shore Rescue never charges for rescue. Never has, never will. Why? Because it will further endager lives. Those in need of rescue may not be able to afford it and may die rather than call for rescue. Those who don't need rescue may evade search efforts and waste resources and jeopardize the lives of would-be rescuers. Read it yourself:
So Grouse Mountain, by very publicly advocating the reform to a system of mandatory fines/charging for rescue is advocating a policy that the very organization which performs rescues believe is harmful and will endanger lives. THAT IS HARMING THE SKI INDUSTRY.
While you were sitting on the couch, apparently you missed the fact that the BC Solicitor General wants to institute a system of fines for skiers who go out of bounds.
Going out of bounds is normal acceptable skier behaviour at moutains all across BC. It is the STANDARD that is accepted. Grouse has the ability to determine what is in bounds, out of bounds, and closed at their own resort. We went Out of Bounds, not into a closed area (it has never been suggested so), and as such we were acting within the reasonable standards of BC skiing. But Grouse's malicious persecution of us now threatens out of bounds access at ALL mountains in BC. THAT IS HARMING THE SKI INDUSTRY.
Now in light of this evidence, are these actions which you want to support? Is this a mountain you are happy to give money to? Is this mountain harming the ski industry? Is this negatively contributing to skiing in BC?
If you truly do not think that how you spend your money matters, then in my opinion, you are naive and ignorant. If you still want to buy a Grouse pass, that's ok, for some people it is the most convenient way for them to ski at this point, but recognize which policies and future standards you are implicity advocating and if that is really what you for the future of skiing in BC.
