# Let's see if this has any legs!



## WoodCore (Jan 15, 2014)

Another attempt to kill the ban on snowboarding at Alta. Hope it ends like all the rest!! 

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/f...in-federal-court-for-right-to-share-mountain/


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 15, 2014)

Was just about to report on it as well:

http://www.saminfo.com/news/group-files-lawsuit-against-alta-allow-snowboarding


----------



## Edd (Jan 15, 2014)

If it were up to me I'd let the snowboarders in.  Seems like alot of wasted energy to keep them out.


----------



## dchan91 (Jan 15, 2014)

yeah they should just let the snowboarders in!


----------



## jack97 (Jan 15, 2014)

fyi...

I find some of the responses to be arrogant and ignorant.


----------



## Tin (Jan 15, 2014)

Is MRG in a state forest?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jan 15, 2014)

I had a feeling this would happen eventually.

I can see the outcome going either way. I'm sure alta will state they they are not discriminating against race or sex, just equipment used.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> Is MRG in a state forest?



No its private property just out Camel's Hump.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

I seriously want this to happen, even though it's overall going to bring in more people to an already busy LCC. Alta is an amazing place that everyone should be able to enjoy.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jan 15, 2014)

Lcc?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Lcc?



I think he meant SLC


----------



## Savemeasammy (Jan 15, 2014)

Little cottonwood canyon.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

Hey, maybe it would take some of the pressure off of Snowbird? That would be an upside


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> Little cottonwood canyon.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Know it all


----------



## Savemeasammy (Jan 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Know it all



Don't be a hater 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jan 15, 2014)

I've always wondered since snowbird is next door, have riders simply taken the snowbird lift up, and crossed lines to board the alta side down?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 15, 2014)

They're suing as a violation of their Constitutional rights?   GTHOUH.   Morons.  

Send these entitled cry-babies to ride some peaks in China so they can get a flavor of what real human rights violations and discrimination looks like.


----------



## Tin (Jan 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Send these entitled cry-babies to ride some peaks in China so they can get a flavor of what real human rights violations and discrimination looks like.



China? Why not Kim-Jung Un's Mudslide Mountain?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 15, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I had a feeling this would happen eventually.
> 
> I can see the outcome going either way. I'm sure alta will state they they are not discriminating against race or sex, just equipment used.



It's going to go down in flames.  Sorry, but snowboarders are not a "protected class" under the constitution.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> They're suing as a violation of their Constitutional rights?   GTHOUH.   Morons.
> 
> Send these entitled cry-babies to ride some peaks in China so they can get a flavor of what real human rights violations and discrimination looks like.


Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen. How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> It's going to go down in flames.  Sorry, but snowboarders are not a "protected class".


This is sort of your thing so define "protected class". Is it a race thing?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen. How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?



That would never fly. MRG might change there tune though after the miserable season they have had so far.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> That would never fly. MRG might change there tune though after the miserable season they have had so far.


Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.



Snowboarders could really screw over MRG if they all chipped in and bought the land that the 19th and 20th hole are on. That would infuriate everyone over there lol.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Snowboarders could really screw over MRG if they all chipped in and bought the land that the 19th and 20th hole are on. That would infuriate everyone over there lol.


LOL, someone start one of those kickstarter thingy's. I'll kick in a few bucks and I don't snowboard, ever.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 15, 2014)

snoseek said:


> LOL, someone start one of those kickstarter thingy's. I'll kick in a few bucks and I don't snowboard, ever.



gofundme.com lol


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 15, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen. How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?



That's different.  There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there cannot be discrimination on the basis of a choice of recreation; and, as said before, nobody is born a "snowboarder" or a "skier."  By their logic, the forest service posting "no ATV" signs on portions of National Forest Land is unconstitutional.  

I don't think we're going to see Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on either the Collins Chair or Jordanelle Gondola because she has a snowboard.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 15, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> That's different.  There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there cannot be discrimination on the basis of a choice of recreation; and, as said before, nobody is born a "snowboarder" or a "skier."  By their logic, the forest service posting "no ATV" signs on portions of National Forest Land is unconstitutional.
> 
> I don't think we're going to see Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on either the Collins Chair or Jordanelle Gondola because she has a snowboard.


Well in that case you're right, no real case. Alta will continue to be douchy, even let in F'n snow bikes. I guess bottom line business is consistently good, they got a formula.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 15, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.



It's public land leased to a private vendor.  It's their call as to how much to charge folks to use it and what folks can do on the land.  Snowboarding is an activity that they, the tenant,  have chosen not to allow...along with sledding, snowmobiling, snow biking, snow fort building, curling, ice hockey, snow volleyball, tubing, etc.  Are all those folks being discriminated against?  No.  Now if Alta was not selling lift tickets to black people, gays/lesbians, or Muslims then there would be a case.    

In the end it will get tossed and Alta will have to spend money defending themselves leading to an increase in ticket rates.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Well, *it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen.*



No they dont have a point, and no they dont have a case.  

It's a private entity, which, for the brief moment actually still means something in America.  Just because someone runs a recreational ski business, doesnt mean they MUST allow snowboarding, or MUST allow snowbiking, or MUST allow tin can garbage-lid sledding.



snoseek said:


> *How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?*



First of all, again, the business is private, not public.  

Secondly, even if the area enacted some stupid law preventing residents of NY and NJ from attending, it would be no skin off my back.  I certainly wouldn't whine about it and hire a team of lawyers, like the entitled, privileged, snotty, Fight-the-(invisible)-power,  _"I want it my way and I want it NOW"_ cowardly society that seems to be ever-growing today under the bogus guise of "fairness".



thetrailboss said:


> In the end it will get tossed and *Alta will have to spend money  defending themselves leading to an increase in ticket rates.*



Utah tends to be one of the relatively sensible states, so hopefully it doesn't get that far and gets tossed quickly.


----------



## Zand (Jan 16, 2014)

I love when people scream discrimination at these types of things. If you don't like it, all you simply have to do is change your boots and the type of plank under your feet. People choose to ski or snowboard. They don't choose to be white or black, male or female, etc. In the 1800s, if you were a black person that didn't want to be a slave, you couldn't just change your skin color. However, if you want to go to Alta or MRG, you have every ability to change what's under your feet. The people who complain that this is discrimination need to get a damn life.


----------



## Madroch (Jan 16, 2014)

Well, an equal protection argument lacks the requisite protected class- what about other 14 th clause- substantive due process?  Still don't think they get beyond rational basis review into any heightened standard... Does it regulate a fundamental right or impinge on a constitutionally protected right....
First amendment anyone?   Doubtful but sure there are some interesting arguments to be made....


----------



## Madroch (Jan 16, 2014)

Assuming  they can somehow satisfy the state action requirement-  it I've seen liquor licenses issued to private golf clubs constitute state action so who knows.....


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 16, 2014)

snoseek said:


> How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks?



I would head there more often


----------



## gostan (Jan 16, 2014)

Give me a break.  I have no issue with Alta as is.  If you do not want to go to Alta, take two planks instead of one.   As a former lawyer who used to board, why not just leave it alone.  Everything in life cannot and should not be solved by a lawsuit filed by some lawyer who has nothing else to do.  Individuality is leaving all of us in this country far too quickly and is being  substituted with complete and utter duplicative homogenous political correctness.


----------



## Nick (Jan 16, 2014)

I find it hard to believe this will not get dropped. Bit who knows. Depends who hears the case I guess 

Should a resort be able to introduce any kind of dress regulations ?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

Nick said:


> I find it hard to believe this will not get dropped. Bit who knows. Depends who hears the case I guess
> 
> Should a resort be able to introduce any kind of dress regulations ?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



I think they would have an impossible time introducing dress regulation at a ski area. Not because of legal ramifications but consumer appeal. What would the point be? On a sub zero day some mountain is going to tell me what I can and can't wear?


----------



## Nick (Jan 16, 2014)

I was trying to compare a dress policy with an equipment policy

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Euler (Jan 16, 2014)

I completely agree with Trailboss here.  Operations on public land regularly, and appropriately restrict how the land may be used, what equipment my be used, what hours it may be used etc.  While I would choose to allow riders along with skiers, I would never say that the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES requires it.  What a waste of time and money. 



thetrailboss said:


> It's public land leased to a private vendor.  It's their call as to how much to charge folks to use it and what folks can do on the land.  Snowboarding is an activity that they, the tenant,  have chosen not to allow...along with sledding, snowmobiling, snow biking, snow fort building, curling, ice hockey, snow volleyball, tubing, etc.  Are all those folks being discriminated against?  No.  Now if Alta was not selling lift tickets to black people, gays/lesbians, or Muslims then there would be a case.
> 
> In the end it will get tossed and Alta will have to spend money defending themselves leading to an increase in ticket rates.


----------



## Euler (Jan 16, 2014)

Zand said:


> I love when people scream discrimination at these types of things. If you don't like it, all you simply have to do is change your boots and the type of plank under your feet. People choose to ski or snowboard. They don't choose to be white or black, male or female, etc. In the 1800s, if you were a black person that didn't want to be a slave, you couldn't just change your skin color. However, if you want to go to Alta or MRG, you have every ability to change what's under your feet. The people who complain that this is discrimination need to get a damn life.



What he said +1^^


----------



## wa-loaf (Jan 16, 2014)

There are a lot of Traverses at Alta. I don't know why they really want to go there anyway ... if they got in they'd ride for a day and go back to Snowbird.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 16, 2014)

wa-loaf said:


> There are a lot of Traverses at Alta. I don't know why they really want to go there anyway ... if they got in they'd ride for a day and go back to Snowbird.


Kind of like the girls who got into the Citidel. They got in and within the first semester the left. It is the whole I don't really want to go but you can't keep me out.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

FWIW one of the Plaintiffs is the owner of Skullcandy and is bankrolling this effort.  

And here is the actually Complaint:  http://wasatchequality.org/sites/default/files/WE - Filed Complaint 1-15-14.pdf

It's clearly a publicity stunt.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW one of the Plaintiffs is the owner of Skullcandy and is bankrolling this effort.
> 
> And here is the actually Complaint:  http://wasatchequality.org/sites/default/files/WE - Filed Complaint 1-15-14.pdf
> 
> It's clearly a publicity stunt.



That make sense now. I'm sure it will be dropped.


----------



## 4aprice (Jan 16, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> I would head there more often



I'm definitely coming up there with cones for your driveway:lol:

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## lerops (Jan 16, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> It's public land leased to a private vendor.  It's their call as to how much to charge folks to use it and what folks can do on the land.  Snowboarding is an activity that they, the tenant,  have chosen not to allow...along with sledding, snowmobiling, snow biking, snow fort building, curling, ice hockey, snow volleyball, tubing, etc.  Are all those folks being discriminated against?  No.  Now if Alta was not selling lift tickets to black people, gays/lesbians, or Muslims then there would be a case.
> 
> In the end it will get tossed and Alta will have to spend money defending themselves leading to an increase in ticket rates.



Well said. I think people are making too big deal out of it. It is a business, and that's how they are defining their business. I wouldn't try to change the rules of a mountain that only let snowboarders in.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 16, 2014)

Madroch said:


> Well, an equal protection argument lacks the requisite protected class- what about other 14 th clause- substantive due process?  Still don't think they get beyond rational basis review into any heightened standard... Does it regulate a fundamental right or impinge on a constitutionally protected right....
> First amendment anyone?   Doubtful but sure there are some interesting arguments to be made....



Perhaps Alta is using snowboarding as a proxy for sexual orientation!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 16, 2014)

Why is it Deer Valley never seems to be part of the conversation? They don't allow snowboarding either.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail.  I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only.  I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision.  I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail.  I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only.  I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision.  I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.



I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 16, 2014)

I don' think it has any merit but why is it different than a dress code? What if you were only allowed to ride the lift at Alta if you were wearing Alta approved gear.. say Kjus, Bogner and Arcteryx? That still cool since its a private company with a lease on our lands?


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 16, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.



Isn't this a trade off you assume when your private business relies on public lands to be viable? Plenty of restrictions and rules already in place


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.



And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain".  There's no sound reason for it.  So F them and I hope they die in a fire.  Sincerely, I hope it.


----------



## 4aprice (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail. * I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only. * I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision.  I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.



I'm not anti snowboard so I don't want to get into a pissing match but I believe they did try to do that at Wolf Mountain (aka Canyons) a while ago.  It might surprise you that I actually would have no problem with it. I don't feel entitled to ski wherever I want.  Private businesses run they way they want to run.  DV, Alta and MRG all seem to have found a market for their product.  The market will determine if the bans stay in place or not.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## dlague (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain".  There's no sound reason for it.  So F them and I hope they die in a fire.  Sincerely, I hope it.



I agree with what you are saying!  I am a skier with kids who snowboard.  We have not been to MRG because of that.  At this day and age, I really do not think it is needed anymore!  Good thing snowboarding did not get bigger than it already has the opposite might have happened! (probably not)


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Why is it Deer Valley never seems to be part of the conversation? They don't allow snowboarding either.



They own the land on which they operate.  Same for MRG.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail.  I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only.  I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision.  I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.



I'm a bit surprised that there is no snowboarders only place.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain".  There's no sound reason for it.  So F them and I hope they die in a fire.  Sincerely, I hope it.



Yea you are probably right. Funny thing is I see a lot more skier "riff-raff" these days than boarders.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 16, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> They own the land on which they operate.  Same for MRG.



Yes but MRG is always part of the conversation. DV isn't.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 16, 2014)

As a business I don't understand how you turn away customers. But it their choice to make.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Yes but MRG is always part of the conversation. DV isn't.



Very true.  I think it may be because most folks see MRG and Alta having more desirable terrain.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

gostan said:


> * Individuality is leaving all of us in this country far too quickly and is being  substituted with complete and utter duplicative homogenous political correctness*.



Amen.  And it's being done under the false pretense of "fairness".




thetrailboss said:


> FWIW one of the Plaintiffs is the owner of Skullcandy and is bankrolling this effort.
> 
> And here is the actually Complaint:  http://wasatchequality.org/sites/default/files/WE - Filed Complaint 1-15-14.pdf
> *
> It's clearly a publicity stunt*.



Not sure how it's a publicity stunt really.  What's the Motive?   _We at Skullcandy think that young snowboarders are so stupid and so easily led-by-the-nose that this might curry favor with them_.   I dont see how this makes sense for Skullcandy otherwise, and frankly, if so, it's insulting to that young snowboarder crowd.



C-Rex said:


> * I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims*.



Not as sad as an adult not understanding the concept and definition of discrimination.  Good grief.



thetrailboss said:


> *I'm a bit surprised that there is no snowboarders only place.*



I'm not.  It's economically unfeasible.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not as sad as an adult not understanding the concept and definition of discrimination. Good grief.



How do you figure I don't understand the concept and definition, smart guy?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not sure how it's a publicity stunt really.  What's the Motive?   _We at Skullcandy think that young snowboarders are so stupid and so easily led-by-the-nose that this might curry favor with them_.   I dont see how this makes sense for Skullcandy otherwise, and frankly, if so, it's insulting to that young snowboarder crowd.



They are fighting authority.  And any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## jimk (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail.  I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only.  I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision.  I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.


I've skied MRG, Taos and Alta.  They are all fantastic!  Everyone should have a chance to experience them.  Skied Taos before and after the ban...same great mtn.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> *How do you figure I don't understand the concept and definition*, smart guy?



Because you believe that if a ski resort does not allow the recreational activity known as snowboarding, they are "discriminating".

Therefore, you do not understand what "discrimination" is.




thetrailboss said:


> They are fighting authority.  *And any publicity is good publicity.*



I suppose so, but it just gives me a slightly negative "gimmicy" view of Skullcandy now.   Then again, I'm not their 17 year old target demo.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because you believe that if a ski resort does not allow the recreational activity known as snowboarding, they are "discriminating".
> 
> Therefore, you do not understand what "discrimination" is.


From Wikipedia:
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."

In this case they are prejudicially treating people based on them being snowboarders by banning them.  Or you could say that they are prejudicially treating snowboards based on some belief by banning them. Still not seeing where I went wrong there, Charlie Brown.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> From Wikipedia:
> Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."
> 
> In this case they are prejudicially treating people based on them being snowboarders by banning them.  Or you could say that they are prejudicially treating snowboards based on some belief by banning them. Still not seeing where I went wrong there, Charlie Brown.



Sure, it is within the broad idea of discrimination but not under the Constitutional definition.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm never said it was ILLEGAL discrimination, but it IS discrimination.  I'm only saying they are dicks for not allowing a type of equipment based on whatever BS reason they have.


----------



## tnt (Jan 16, 2014)

jack97 said:


> fyi...
> 
> I find some of the responses to be arrogant and ignorant.



That's a funny video.


----------



## dl (Jan 16, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm a bit surprised that there is no snowboarders only place.


So here's a question for everyone. Suppose that there were a snowboarders-only place. Let's call it Schmalta. Let's say that it was like Alta in every way - it's a place for which every hard corps snowboarder is beyond passionate. It's also a place that would be one of the best places to ski in the US. If you were a skier and you wanted the opportunity to ski there, how would you approach this challenge? (Poaching is not an answer - snowboarders do that already and it's only temporary). Clearly suing Schmalta is not the way to go based on all these posts. Who has a better (and realistic) idea?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 16, 2014)

dl said:


> So here's a question for everyone. Suppose that there were a snowboarders-only place. Let's call it Schmalta. Let's say that it was like Alta in every way - it's a place for which every hard corps snowboarder is beyond passionate. It's also a place that would be one of the best places to ski in the US. If you were a skier and you wanted the opportunity to ski there, how would you approach this challenge? (Poaching is not an answer - snowboarders do that already and it's only temporary). Clearly suing Schmalta is not the way to go based on all these posts. Who has a better (and realistic) idea?



I'd go somewhere else.  To some extent folks are interested because it is "forbidden fruit".


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 16, 2014)

jack97 said:


> fyi...
> 
> I find some of the responses to be arrogant and ignorant.



wow, arrogant and ignorant is right.

I'm all for snowboarders on all mountains.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

Should all female gyms be banned?


----------



## mbedle (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm not sure what percentage of snowboarders routinely use parks at ski areas, but I would think the number is pretty high. Even if Alta is forced to allow the use of snowboards on their lifts (which I understand is what Alta and other resorts on public land, actually owns and controls, at least more so than the physical trails) they are not exactly going to cater to the snowboarding crowd. You certainly won't see any parks showing up at the resort. They also could limit what services they offer to snowboarding guess (ski checks only, ski tuning and repairs only, ski equipment rentals and sales only, etc..). Sure a few of us might not really care, but other might. If you think about it, they really could make it pretty unpleasant for snowboarders if they wanted to limit their attendance. You are certainly not going to see any snowboarding lessons taking place at Alta. As far as this lawsuit goes, I can't imagine this is the first one they've been up against. My guess is it won't hold up in court.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 16, 2014)

I don't think they should be forced to do anything.  And even if they do allow snowboarders, I personally, would not expect them to cater to snowboarders.  All I ask is to be allowed to ride the lift and to access the terrain.  Same as I'd ask of MRG or Deer Valley.  If you want to keep the "skier's mountain" vibe, I'm all for it.  I believe that's the reason these resorts don't want to allow boards. They feel they'd then have to cater to them, and it most certainly would change the mountain.  That's not fair and I understand them being put off by the idea of it.  I'm perfectly ok with them saying, "This resort is designed to be suited for skiing.  Snowboarders may have difficulty on traverses, terrain, etc."  I'll carry some collapsable poles and make sure my legs are ready for moguls.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Amen.  And it's being done under the false pretense of "fairness".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People still snowboard? 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## mbedle (Jan 16, 2014)

Another interesting fact listed in the complaint is that 300 of the acres that Alta operates on is not part of the NFS. Is it possible that if those acres are located at the base of the mountain facilities, they could also throw out the lawsuit? In other words, if the lift loading areas are located on private land, could they use that to limit the access to their lifts?


----------



## farlep99 (Jan 16, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Another interesting fact listed in the complaint is that 300 of the acres that Alta operates on is not part of the NFS. Is it possible that if those acres are located at the base of the mountain facilities, they could also throw out the lawsuit? In other words, if the lift loading areas are located on private land, could they use that to limit the access to their lifts?



There's absolutely no case here. Whatsoever. Period. Alta might as well get a kid fresh out of law school to defend this and save some $.

As mentioned earlier this is a publicity stunt. Not so much for the Skullcandy brand or anything, but by filing the suit they drew attention to the issue. I think that's as far as they'll get.

Frankly, anyone having anything to do with filing this complaint should be publicly shamed. People often complain about frivolous lawsuits & the costs associated with tying up the courts. Taking one second of the court's time with this is the height of frivolity. They should be embarrassed & anyone who complains about frivolous lawsuits should be outraged.

Edited to add: F*ck Skullcandy.


----------



## tnt (Jan 16, 2014)

I don't really see the validity of the "National Forest" argument.

There are all sorts of public and private operators that use national forest land and limit access in one way or the other.

If Alta allowed snowboarders, they are still keeping out snow shoe-rs.  And uphill traffic (just checked their policy.)

Heck, they are keeping out hikers, kite flyers, bird watchers….

Not that I am agreeing with it, mind you, just saying, that doesn't seem like a good argument to me.


----------



## lerops (Jan 16, 2014)

There is nothing inherent about snowboarders that make them a different group of people, therefore discrimination is clearly misused. 

Also, there are multiple people on this thread who already said that they wouldn't mind a mountain for only snowboarders. 

It is their business, and that's how they are defining their business. That's all there is to it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 16, 2014)

Many Federal & State parks on Long Island are permitted for fishermen only. These are run by the government, not a private corporation. Many beaches on Long Island are permitted for town residents only.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 16, 2014)

farlep99 said:


> Frankly, anyone having anything to do with filing this complaint should be publicly shamed. People often complain about frivolous lawsuits & the costs associated with tying up the courts. Taking one second of the court's time with this is the height of frivolity. They should be embarrassed & anyone who complains about frivolous lawsuits should be outraged.



Yeah, the court needs to sanction the attorneys for Skullcandy.  In addition to having Skullcandy pay all of Alta's legal fees.


----------



## Conrad (Jan 16, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> It's going to go down in flames.  Sorry, but snowboarders are not a "protected class" under the constitution.



Exactly. The choice between skiing and snowboarding is voluntary. Therefore, Alta is not discriminating against any people, they are just regulating how people can enjoy the slopes. I would assume that other entities with cross country ski trails and snowshoe trails would be allowed to regulate which trails are for cross country skiers and which trails are for snowshoes. Of course snowshoes can go on the cross country ski trails without too much problem, but it naturally leads to less enjoyment for the both groups. The same goes for skiers or snowboarders.

By the way, I would be totally okay if a snowboard area opened that didn't allow skiers. It actually would probably be a good business plan...they could bill it as a destination resort and the "first snowboarders only mountain in the country!"


----------



## jack97 (Jan 16, 2014)

tnt said:


> I don't really see the validity of the "National Forest" argument.



Definitely agree.

I believe the snowboard ban is archaic, these places should loosen up and get with the times. But I also believe that the private group running Alta has the right to allow the ban. It still irks me how self centered some those Alta skiers are in the vid.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

Funny how people have no problem with discrimination when its not against something they do. Speaks a lot about the person. 

The protected class argument, while legal, is still ethically wrong. 

Why? Because its still discrimination. 

The only instance where protected classes deals with needs is housing and food purchases. Those are true needs. 

Rosa Parks? Sure she didn't have a choice on her skin color, but she did have a choice about getting on a bus to transport her somewhere. She could have walked, or bought her own car. 

Theres been a lot of LGBT situations with legal precedent with wedding cakes. Another want. Not a need. In Colorado a bakery (private establishment) must sell a want to homosexuals. How is this really any different when not talking about the basic necessities of life.

So for everyone using the make a different choice, thanks for letting us know you support discrimination, it doesn't change ethically just because its a private business. 

Legal does not necessarily mean right.


----------



## farlep99 (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So for everyone using the make a different choice, thanks for letting us know you support discrimination, it doesn't change ethically just because its a private business.
> 
> Legal does not necessarily mean right.



This is a load of horseshit.  "Discrimination," as the word is used today, refers to people, not activities.  That is, people are discriminated against, not things.  Skis & snowboards are things.  Not allowing snowboards is not discrimination.  Not allowing females on snowboards (but allowing males) = discrimination.  

I'd love to take my snowmobile & ride all around ski areas.  But none will let me.  I think us slednecks should band together & file suit!!


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

farlep99 said:


> This is a load of horseshit.  "Discrimination," as the word is used today, refers to people, not activities.  That is, people are discriminated against, not things.  Skis & snowboards are things.  Not allowing snowboards is not discrimination.  Not allowing females on snowboards (but allowing males) = discrimination.
> 
> I'd love to take my snowmobile & ride all around ski areas.  But none will let me.  I think us slednecks should band together & file suit!!



Ok, but this isn't a black and white argument, are you saying its really conceptually different? 

Whether discriminating against a female or not allowing a piece of equipment, you are still refusing service because you think you are better than them, the race, activity, or service is moot.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 16, 2014)

I support the ending of the bans on boards. However I support the right of a buissness to opperate the way that they see fit more.
I 100% would be ok with a mtn having a board only policy. I wouldnt go there as I ski, but support their choice to operate how they want.


Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## farlep99 (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Ok, but this isn't a black and white argument, are you saying its really conceptually different?
> 
> Whether discriminating against a female or not allowing a piece of equipment, you are still refusing service because you think you are better than them, the race, activity, or service is moot.



What's with the "you think you are better than them" thing. Is that why Alta doesn't allow snowboards? If that's the reason than I'd agree with you, but I think they've just made a decision to make it skiers only. Maybe because it's 'old-school' or whatever. I don't know why they do it. But it's not discrimination. Unless we want to agree that every ski resort 'discriminates' against sledders, slednecks, snowshoers, etc.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.



Since you clearly missed my point, Its not comparing rosa parks to snowboarders or anything. In fact my point is the exact opposite. 

Its not the issue of race, gay rights, or snowboarding, its the notion that's its cool to exclude someone from a want just because you don't like them. Riding a bus is no more of a need than riding a ski lift. They are both ultimately luxuries and not needed. 

So take the situation out of a specific context. Are you ok with exclusion and why? I just find it interesting how people convince themselves its ok in one instance, and not in another in non-life or death scenarios.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

farlep99 said:


> What's with the "you think you are better than them" thing. Is that why Alta doesn't allow snowboards? If that's the reason than I'd agree with you, but I think they've just made a decision to make it skiers only. Maybe because it's 'old-school' or whatever. I don't know why they do it. But it's not discrimination. Unless we want to agree that every ski resort 'discriminates' against sledders, slednecks, snowshoers, etc.



Uhhh that's pretty clearly the reasoning in this specific scenario with Alta. 

Noone actively turns paying customers away just cause.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> From Wikipedia:
> Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."
> 
> In this case they are prejudicially treating people based on them being snowboarders by banning them.  Or you could say that they are prejudicially treating snowboards based on some belief by banning them.* Still not seeing where I went wrong there*, Charlie Brown.



Yes, I know.



MadMadWorld said:


> Should all female gyms be banned?



OMG, they're "discriminating" against men!*


*For those too lazy to read an entire thread, this is sarcasm


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

farlep99 said:


> As mentioned earlier this is a publicity stunt. Not so much for the  Skullcandy brand or anything, but by filing the suit they drew attention  to the issue. I think that's as far as they'll get.
> 
> Frankly, anyone having anything to do with filing this complaint should be publicly shamed. *People  often complain about frivolous lawsuits & the costs associated with  tying up the courts. Taking one second of the court's time with this is  the height of frivolity. They should be embarrassed & anyone who  complains about frivolous lawsuits should be outraged.
> 
> Edited to add: F*ck Skullcandy.*



This.   

But Skullcandy is making the calculated decision that the intended  audience is too young and stupid to comprehend the full complexity of  the situation.  And sadly, I'm sure they're probably correct.



AdironRider said:


> Theres been a lot of LGBT situations with legal precedent with wedding  cakes. Another want. Not a need. In Colorado a bakery (private  establishment) must sell a want to homosexuals.* How is this really any different when not talking about the basic necessities of life.*



It's different because a moronic liberal judge made an activist  political decision rather than a legal decision, which shredded both  state's rights and the right's of private entities.   

The bakery owner was NOT discriminating against gays, he was stating that since his religion disagrees with gay marriage, that he shouldnt be forced by government to play a role in that gay marriage.  And I couldnt agree with him more.  The baker was the one who's rights were infringed upon, not the gay couple who could have received same services from 1003 other bakeries.



MadMadWorld said:


> Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.



I loffed!


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This.
> 
> But Skullcandy is making the calculated decision that the intended  audience is too young and stupid to comprehend the full complexity of  the situation.  And sadly, I'm sure they're probably correct.
> 
> ...



So your personal beliefs and political persuasion set the bar? 

So Benedict, why is it ok to exclude someone in one scenario and not in another. Again, the activity or service doesn't matter, but what benefit does it give?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Since you clearly missed my point, Its not comparing rosa parks to snowboarders or anything. In fact my point is the exact opposite.
> 
> Its not the issue of race, gay rights, or snowboarding, its the notion that's its cool to exclude someone from a want just because you don't like them. Riding a bus is no more of a need than riding a ski lift. They are both ultimately luxuries and not needed.
> 
> So take the situation out of a specific context. Are you ok with exclusion and why? I just find it interesting how people convince themselves its ok in one instance, and not in another in non-life or death scenarios.



It's not like Rosa Parks could bleach her skin and all of a sudden sit at the front of the bus! If you really wanted to experience any of those resorts all you have to do is throw on a pair of skis! Rosa Parks was held up as a symbol of the struggle of the Civil Rights movement but in reality there were a hell of a lot worse things going on.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

So again, taking situational context out of things, you are ok with excluding someone just because you want to? 

Rosa Parks is just a convenient example. It wasn't life or death, she didn't need to ride, hell she could still get where she wanted to go. 

Yet that example of exclusion is terrible, but physically not even letting someone use a service, that again is just a luxury, is ok. 

Both scenarios fall under the choice argument you brought up. Im just asking why you think that way.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So your personal beliefs and political persuasion set the bar?



That's exactly what you're doing when you elevate "cake baking" to a higher status than religious freedom.

You cant alter your religions beliefs, but that couple could have bought a friggin' cake from 1000 other places.   Again, liberal judge made an activist political decision rather than a legal decision and shredded the Constitution, as they are want to frequently do.



AdironRider said:


> So Benedict, why is it ok to exclude someone in one scenario and not in another. Again, the activity or service doesn't matter, but *what benefit does it give?*



In certain situations the private entity may believe that the creation of a niche leads to success.  I think that's pretty obvious.   For instance, as was stated recently in another thread, were it not for the old school niche that MRG has created, it would have gone-under years ago.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

I never elevated cake baking, just an example of hypocrisy. 

Everyone uses that argument, but Alta really isn't old school with high speed lifts etc compared to MRG. I think they would also need to prove it hurts their business first (which they cant and it wont).


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So again, taking situational context out of things, you are ok with excluding someone just because you want to?
> 
> Rosa Parks is just a convenient example. It wasn't life or death, she didn't need to ride, hell she could still get where she wanted to go.
> 
> ...



You keep hanging onto the fact that you as a human being are excluded from going to MRG/Alta/DV because you are a snowboarder. But you could walk up to the ticket window with the same clothes, hair do,  etc that you would have on if you were go snowboarding and they would give you a lift ticket as long as you were skiing. If they refused to give you a lift ticket simply because you "looked" or "acted" like a snowboarder then I could completely understand your argument. But that's just not the case here.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

Alta cant really argue that skiing only is their niche in their market considering they share half a mountain with a competitor that allows snowboarding (and arguably a more successful competitor in terms of financials).


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 16, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> You keep hanging onto the fact that you as a human being are excluded from going to MRG/Alta/DV because you are a snowboarder. But you could walk up to the ticket window with the same clothes, hair do,  etc that you would have on if you were go snowboarding and they would give you a lift ticket as long as you were skiing. If they refused to give you a lift ticket simply because you "looked" or "acted" like a snowboarder then I could completely understand your argument. But that's just not the case here.



No, again snowboarding has nothing to do with it. 

Its the fact that you think its ok to exclude someone for something you don't like/disagree with. I find it interesting as to why. 

Its more my libertarian nature than my preference to ride. I just find it laughable when dealing with inconsequential matters how you can justify it, especially in a business sense.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> No, again snowboarding has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Its the fact that you think its ok to exclude someone for something you don't like/disagree with. I find it interesting as to why.
> 
> Its more my libertarian nature than my preference to ride. I just find it laughable when dealing with inconsequential matters how you can justify it, especially in a business sense.



I think most Libertarians would support free enterprise over government involvement any day of the week.


----------



## Edd (Jan 16, 2014)

It's official.  This thread has legs.


----------



## WoodCore (Jan 16, 2014)

Edd said:


> It's official.  This thread has legs.



+1


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I think most Libertarians would support free enterprise over government involvement any day of the week.



That was a shocker for me too. 

 It was a bit like the end of Sixth Sense.


----------



## lerops (Jan 16, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> No, again snowboarding has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Its the fact that you think its ok to exclude someone for something you don't like/disagree with. I find it interesting as to why.
> 
> Its more my libertarian nature than my preference to ride. I just find it laughable when dealing with inconsequential matters how you can justify it, especially in a business sense.



Locke and Hayek would turn in their graves!

It is quite simple: Alta is not in the business of providing a mountain for snowboarders to slide down. It would be entirely OK for another mountain to not provide these services to skiers. For example, most driving tracks would not let all kinds of vehicles into their facilities. They are running a business. They have the liberty to choose what services they provide, and what they don't. A true libertarian would fight against any government imposed rule telling businesses what services to provide and what services not to provide.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 16, 2014)

lerops said:


> For example, *most driving tracks would not let all kinds of vehicles into their facilities. They are running a business. They have the liberty to choose what services they provide, and what they don't.* A true libertarian would fight against any government imposed rule telling businesses what services to provide and what services not to provide.



Are you suggesting my lawsuit against Daytona International Speedway not allowing me to ride my mountain bike doesn't have legs?  

Just a few laps is all I ask, I'm awesome at left turns.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 17, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> So again, taking situational context out of things, you are ok with excluding someone just because you want to?
> 
> Rosa Parks is just a convenient example. It wasn't life or death, she didn't need to ride, hell she could still get where she wanted to go.
> 
> ...



You need to disabuse yourself of the delusion that Alta's ban on snowboards is a discrimination. With Rosa, the service was sitting in a seat on a bus for the purpose of transporting; not any other service, for example: skateboarding in the isle of a bus while the bus is transporting. She was discriminated on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin for requesting the same service the bus company was providing any other person - that service of sitting in a seat on the bus for the purpose of public transportation. With Alta, the service is skiing, not snowboarding. If find yourself being discriminated against for wanting to *ski* there on on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual origin or national origin, then you have a case. 

 Comparing riding a ski lift at Alta to riding a bus is a non-starter. The permit granted to Alta to operate on public land is more than a permit to simply operate lifts for the purpose of public transport. The permit allows them to operate a ski area in a manor they deem fit. 

If you don't like it, by all means feel free partition your congressman to change or revoke the land use permit Alta maintains; but don't call it discrimination.


----------



## Conrad (Jan 17, 2014)

lerops said:


> It is quite simple: Alta is not in the business of providing a mountain for snowboarders to slide down. It would be entirely OK for another mountain to not provide these services to skiers. For example, most driving tracks would not let all kinds of vehicles into their facilities. They are running a business. They have the liberty to choose what services they provide, and what they don't. A true libertarian would fight against any government imposed rule telling businesses what services to provide and what services not to provide.



Exactly, a true libertarian would realize that life isn't always fair, but the less the government meddles/regulates, the better, in the big picture. Alta has been operating for over 75 years and has banned snowboarding for almost 30 years, using it as a marketing tactic. And now "libertarians" want to force Alta to allow snowboarders?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 17, 2014)

Conrad said:


> *a true libertarian would realize that life isn't always fair, but the  less the government meddles/regulates, the better,* in the big picture......And *now "libertarians" want to force Alta to allow snowboarders?*



No; but some people think they're libertarians, when they're clearly not.


----------



## Rowsdower (Jan 17, 2014)

Meh, Libertarians. They're just letting a different group of people tell them what they should and shouldn't do. 

Look, if Alta wants to be a bunch of dicks, they're free to it. The snowboarders won years ago anyway. Sure, there'll be a couple of houldouts that don't want to change, but that's just the way the world works. Some people just don't want to move on.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 17, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Look, if Alta wants to be a bunch of dicks, they're free to it. The snowboarders won years ago anyway. Sure, there'll be a couple of houldouts that don't want to change, but that's just the way the world works. Some people just don't want to move on.



That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  

Wish Alta and MRG would stop being dicks.  

I don't buy into the rationalization that either place is discriminating.  I also don't buy any defense of a "ski only" policy as anything but being a dick.  

Share your slopes Alta, Deer Valley and Mad River Glen.  Stop denying the joy your mountains bring to you from others who choose to slide down mountains on a snowboard.  They're after the same joy you are.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 17, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
> 
> Wish Alta and MRG would stop being dicks.
> 
> ...




I like the way you think.  Wanna be friends? :beer:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 17, 2014)

Libertarians: there were a bunch of Ron Paul stickers and signs on the way up to LCC a few years back.  How funny!


----------



## dlague (Jan 17, 2014)

lerops said:


> Locke and Hayek would turn in their graves!
> 
> It is quite simple: Alta is not in the business of providing a mountain for snowboarders to slide down. It would be entirely OK for another mountain to not provide these services to skiers. For example, most driving tracks would not let all kinds of vehicles into their facilities. They are running a business. They have the liberty to choose what services they provide, and what they don't. A true libertarian would fight against any government imposed rule telling businesses what services to provide and what services not to provide.



Look if a friggin' golf course can do this:



> The home of the Masters now has green jackets for women.
> 
> In a historic change at one of the world's most exclusive golf clubs, Augusta National invited former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina financier Darla Moore to become the first female members since the club was founded in 1932.
> 
> ...



Then the ski areas that are hold outs can do the same!  In the famous words of Rodney King:  "Can't we all just get along?"


----------



## hrstrat57 (Jan 17, 2014)

A mountain only for snowboards is an interesting concept......

Could work? 

Save Mt. Whittier....there you go!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 17, 2014)

hrstrat57 said:


> A mountain only for snowboards is an interesting concept......
> 
> Could work?
> 
> Save Mt. Whittier....there you go!



Sadly it's too far gone


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> Look if a friggin' golf course can do this:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the ski areas that are hold outs can do the same!  In the famous words of Rodney King:  "Can't we all just get along?"



This pretty much sums up my thoughts. 

And the Libertarian thing always gets lumped into a general "anti government everything" vibe. Yeah sure maybe for loonbats, but most Libertarians realize that some services (like water, sewer, roads) are public utilities. Libertarianism isn't all free state bullshit. 

Anywho, my libertarian nature comment is more on the live and let live side of things than an anti-government intrusion stance in this specific situation.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> Look if a friggin' golf course can do this:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the ski areas that are hold outs can do the same!  In the famous words of Rodney King:  "Can't we all just get along?"



Here's the difference. That golf course holds one of the premier golf tournaments in big TV money ( think advertisement $$ ) sports. 
Alta, MRG and DV barely make a mention in the floundering SKI mag industry.  No one, outside of the snow sports participant population, and more to the point of this topic, a small portion of the snowboarding population, cares what Alta does.


----------



## abc (Jan 17, 2014)

If you're a boarder, you just don't like to be excluded. Period. It's not nice. 

But that doesn't make it discrimination. 

Some places have dress code. You can't just walk in: "no shirt, no shoes, no service!" Exclusive, but not discrimination.

Some mountains will not allow snowboards. You want to slide around at Alta, slide on skis! 

It's their dress code. No skis, no lift. You can't walk up to a lift, even if you have a lift ticket. Nor can you get on a lift if you only got snowboard. 

Discrimination against boarding? Sure! Discrimination against shoes? Suuuuuureee...!!!


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 17, 2014)

Everyone seems to think that the word discrimination only pertains to unconstitutional forms such as race, religion, age, etc. It's a much broader term than that. Discrimination against snowboarders isn't illegal but it still qualifies as discrimination under its technical definition. I understand that the prosecution is trying to make the case that it is illegal but they're idiots and that's why the suit will fail. Alta, MRG, and Deer Valley have every right to limit the types of equipment used at their resort. If they want to exclude a large demographic for whatever lame reasons they have, that's their prerogative. But I still maintain that they are douchebags for doing it. I'm perfectly fine taking my money elsewhere.


----------



## xlr8r (Jan 17, 2014)

It just making up controversy for publicity.  If there were plenty of areas that still dd not allow boarding, I could understand their point.  But there are hundreds of ski areas in the US, and only three do not allow boarding, Just Three!!!.  Whats the big deal.  There are plenty of other options for boarders.  Anyway, right next to Alta is Snowbird, right next to Deer Valley is Park City, and right next to Mad River, is Sugarbush.  This is just an example of trying to cause controversy over nothing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Here's the difference. That golf course holds one of the premier golf tournaments in big TV money ( think advertisement $$ ) sports.
> Alta, MRG and DV barely make a mention in the floundering SKI mag industry.



Whoa, gotta disagree on this point.  Count how many ads and pictures feature Alta terrain in POWDER the next time you get a chance.  You won't believe it.  And Deer Valley has many ads and is in the ski resort reviews/surveys all the time.  Finally, there is almost always at least one token MRG article every season in SKI/SKIING.  Or there used to be....

Lots of attention, hence why the ban is still an issue.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 18, 2014)

abc said:


> If you're a boarder, you just don't like to be excluded. Period. It's not nice.
> 
> But that doesn't make it discrimination.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  The lawsuit can only challenge legal wrongs or, in this case, unconstitutional discrimination.  

And I'm going to  here for the hell of it because I see a lot of folks saying that any kind of discrimination or selecting who and who not to associate with is wrong.  Come on guys.  Get off the high (moral) horse.  We all discriminate EVERY DAY.  It's just a fact of life.  Specifically, we all avoid the homeless guy outside the Dunkin Donuts, we invite some folks to our house but not others, we avoid the Jehovahs Witness or door-to-door salespeople, we say nasty things to telemarketers, we avoid some folks because of how they dress and hang out with others because of how they look.  It's completely human nature; it's how we survive.  

Now we have determined that it is illegal to discriminate against certain classes and that's fine.  But some still don't do that.  

So to anyone who sings koombayah and doesn't choose who to associate with, I call BS.


----------



## jaybird (Jan 18, 2014)

On a lift yesterday, somebody mentioned that MRG ran a condition report earlier this week.
They were closed at the time and reported that there was 'no skiing today'.
They went on to proclaim that, although no skiing was unfortunate, there was also NO SNOWBOARDING !

MRG is a Co-op, much different from Alta. They make and stand behind their own decisions.
It might be different had the early snowboarders not pissed Betsy off with their antics.
That dug her heels in pretty good, and the Co-op has maintained that position. 

Don't much care about what happens at Alta. It's not the best terrain for boarding.
Only grinding material there would be on lift towers, dolomite and conifers.
Those are not the most tantalizing of all elements.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 18, 2014)

MRG is entitled to do what they want and I'm entitled to think their being dicks for maintaining the ban on snowboarding.  God Bless Betsy for all she's done, but she really needs to grow up and get over the spat she had with boarders what? 20 years ago.  Totally immature to still hold that grudge and for the Co-op members to support it. 

I'll still go there when I can because I love the terrain.


----------



## abc (Jan 18, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> MRG is entitled to do what they want and I'm entitled to think their being dicks for maintaining the ban on snowboarding.  God Bless Betsy for all she's done, but she really needs to grow up and get over the spat she had with boarders what? 20 years ago.  Totally immature to still hold that grudge and for the Co-op members to support it.
> 
> I'll still go there when I can because I love the terrain.


MRG got into the snowboarding ban "accidentally". 

But the co-op had since realized the accidental ban had created a unique product that's desirable to skiers. So the ban stands, now on their own merit.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jan 18, 2014)

I still don't get this "discrimination" piece. Race, religion? Excluding on that basis is discrimination. 

But not allowing an inanimate object is now discrimination? Lets not forget, we are banning the piece of equipment, NOT the person. Like it's been said, any person can use Alta if they are on ski's. Doesn't matter if you're black, white, Jewish, etc.

If this suit actually passes, can I sue Alta for not letting me use a snowmobile on their slopes? What about sueing 7-11 for not letting me walk into their store on a hot summer day with just a pair of shorts?


----------



## abc (Jan 18, 2014)

In the early days of mtn biking, I got pissed about majority of hiking trails banning bikes (and admit to poaching them). But a couple decades later, there're now much better designed mtn bike trails to ride legally, I leave the hiking trails alone. 

I wish snowboarders as a group can grow up and realize they have plenty of better place to ride and leave the like of Alta/MRG alone:



jaybird said:


> Don't much care about what happens at Alta. It's not the best terrain for boarding.
> Only grinding material there would be on lift towers, dolomite and conifers.
> Those are not the most tantalizing of all elements.


----------



## lerops (Jan 18, 2014)

dlague said:


> Look if a friggin' golf course can do this:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the ski areas that are hold outs *can do the same*!  In the famous words of Rodney King:  "Can't we all just get along?"



I believe women can use the services offered by Alta, DV and MRG the same way men can.


----------



## lerops (Jan 18, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
> 
> And the Libertarian thing always gets lumped into a general "anti government everything" vibe. Yeah sure maybe for loonbats, but most Libertarians realize that some services (like water, sewer, roads) are public utilities. Libertarianism isn't all free state bullshit.
> 
> Anywho, my libertarian nature comment is more on the live and let live side of things than an anti-government intrusion stance in this specific situation.



Libertarianism isn't about "anti government everything". Neither it is about "free to do everything".

I understand feeling bad about this. But throwing big words like discrimination, freedom, etc. diminishes the importance of the issues for which people fight to gain liberties.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 18, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> MRG is entitled to do what they want and I'm entitled to think their being dicks for maintaining the ban on snowboarding.  God Bless Betsy for all she's done, but she really needs to grow up and get over the spat she had with boarders what? 20 years ago.  Totally immature to still hold that grudge and for the Co-op members to support it.
> 
> I'll still go there when I can because I love the terrain.



Exactly Instead of being snarky about how they don't allow snowboarders,  perhaps they should spend some time in the offseason thinking about a way they might manage to stay open during peak season. But hey who needs customers.

I could care less that I am not allowed to snowboard at these three places... My list of spots to visits is plenty long without them. To me the bans are holdovers kept in place largely by a bunch of pretentious dbags who must still think snowboarders are all punks... To pretend it's anything else is silly.


----------



## abc (Jan 18, 2014)

SnowRock said:


> I could care less that I am not allowed to snowboard at these three places... My list of spots to visits is plenty long without them. To me the bans are holdovers kept in place largely by a bunch of pretentious dbags who must still think snowboarders are all punks... To pretend it's anything else is silly.


So it's a holdover. So whose business is that but the owners?

You said you couldn't care less. But some of your brothers care so much they bring a lawsuit. Isn't it a waste of time? "when the list of spots to visits is plenty long without them"!

Hypocritical bunch of punks.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 18, 2014)

SnowRock said:


> Exactly To me the bans are holdovers kept in place largely by a bunch of pretentious dbags who must still think snowboarders are all punks...


They may have a point.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 18, 2014)

abc said:


> So it's a holdover. So whose business is that but the owners?
> 
> You said you couldn't care less. But some of your brothers care so much they bring a lawsuit. Isn't it a waste of time? "when the list of spots to visits is plenty long without them"!
> 
> Hypocritical bunch of punks. :flame:



My brothers? This is likely a publicity stunt by someone who owns  a company.  Just because I snowboard are you suggesting I have some deeper bond with the folks that filed suit?

Have you found snowboarders across the country standing up and fighting this issue? I'd say the majority would struggle to name the three resorts it's still banned at. No one cares. 

Also I have no issue with them running their business the way they see fit. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the ban. It's silly and appeals to the ostentatious type that  believes sliding on snow with 2 planks somehow makes them a better person.  

I'd see if they can get that dress code thing going... Kjus or Bogner can be their shirt and tie and then even the tall tee new schoolers on skis won't mess up the mountain.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 18, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> They may have a point.



Yeah none of us are house trained. Obviously if you ski you must have gone to finishing school and are a regular reader of Judith Martin. 

I didn't realize the whole ski vs snowboard thing was still a thing but I guess some folks are stuck in the mid 90s.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> MRG is entitled to do what they want and I'm entitled to think their being dicks for maintaining the ban on snowboarding.  God Bless Betsy for all she's done, but she really needs to grow up and get over the spat she had with boarders what? 20 years ago.  Totally immature to still hold that grudge and for the Co-op members to support it.
> 
> I'll still go there when I can because I love the terrain.



It was ridiculous and got blown out of proportion anyways.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

I'm pretty sure the ban at MRG is bigger then Betsy. I am almost positive that the issue regularly comes up at shareholder meetings. So go ahead knuckle-dragers start buying some shares. I'm sure you will make lots of friends... 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> I'm pretty sure the ban at MRG is bigger then Betsy. I am almost positive that the issue regularly comes up at shareholder meetings. So go ahead knuckle-dragers start buying some shares. I'm sure you will make lots of friends...
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



It does come up in shareholder meetings. Shareholders have mentioned it in these forums several times over the years.  Their right as owners to be dicks and keep voting snowboarders out.  There's no good reason to vote that way other than to be a dick.


----------



## abc (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> It does come up in shareholder meetings. Shareholders have mentioned it in these forums several times over the years.  Their right as owners to be dicks and keep voting snowboarders out.  There's no good reason to vote that way other than to be a dick.


Dicks who put their wallet on the line!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

abc said:


> Dicks who put their wallet on the line!



You don't believe there would be share holders who are snowboarders if snowboarding was allowed at MRG?  Right..........

I'll say it again, it's their coop and they are entitled to run MRG how they want.  I just think anyone who doesn't want to share the slopes with someone because they snowboard is a dick.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

I don't think it's dickish to retain the integrity of the area. First allowing snowboarders, then snowmaking and grooming. Take away all the things that make MRG special and you end up with a cookie-cutter area on it'd way to NELSAP

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

Oh so snowboarders take away from the integrity of an area?  Nice


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Oh so snowboarders take away from the integrity of an area?  Nice



I don't think you lose integrity because snowboarders lack it but let me play devil's advocate for a second....You would need to address a number of issues that would result from increased traffic on the mountain....

1. Parking - it's already impossible during vacation and busy weekends.

2. Snowmaking - they would almost certainly need to improve capability on the mountain.

3. Up Hill Capacity - It's already really bad on a powder day and would force them to replace the single. Add in the fact that they would probably need to do something with the unloading area.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Oh so snowboarders take away from the integrity of an area?  Nice



Not any area, just MRG, Alta and Deer Valley. I don't see what the problem is? And I find it offensive when people call these areas dicks for running THERE BUSSINES the way THEY WANT TO. 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I don't think you lose integrity because snowboarders lack it but let me play devil's advocate for a second....You would need to address a number of issues that would result from increased traffic on the mountain....
> 
> 1. Parking - it's already impossible during vacation and busy weekends.
> 
> ...



If MRG has capacity issues in regards to parking, snowmaking and lift capacity, then determine what the comfortable carrying capacity is of the area and restrict ticket sales to address the issue.  
Those are issues independent of how someone chooses to slide downhill.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> Not any area, just MRG, Alta and Deer Valley. I don't see what the problem is? And I find it offensive when people call these areas dicks for running THERE BUSSINES the way THEY WANT TO.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



It's snobbery.  It's skiers thinking that a place is inherently better void of others who choose a different tool to pursue the exact same experience.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> It's snobbery.  It's skiers thinking that a place is inherently better void of others who choose a different tool to pursue the exact same experience.



OK. You say tomato, I say potato, let's agree to disagree. I have nothing to say that hasn't been said all ready. We REALLY need some snow. Go Broncos ;-) 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> If MRG has capacity issues in regards to parking, snowmaking and lift capacity, then determine what the comfortable carrying capacity is of the area and restrict ticket sales to address the issue.
> Those are issues independent of how someone chooses to slide downhill.



Most of their skiers are passholders so are you possibly going to manage that on any given day? Passholders is what keeps that mountain alive to restrict the pass numbers at the beginning of the season would be a financial blunder. They would have to upgrade a ton of stuff. Even if you keep the single it would be a shit show if they left the unload zone the way it is. That would be work as well.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I don't think you lose integrity because snowboarders lack it but let me play devil's advocate for a second....You would need to address a number of issues that would result from increased traffic on the mountain....
> 
> 1. Parking - it's already impossible during vacation and busy weekends.
> 
> ...



I did not intend to imply ALL snowboarders lack integrity.  Mad sums it up very nicely. Thank you  

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Most of their skiers are passholders so are you possibly going to manage that on any given day? Passholders is what keeps that mountain alive to restrict the pass numbers at the beginning of the season would be a financial blunder. They would have to upgrade a ton of stuff. Even if you keep the single it would be a shit show if they left the unload zone the way it is. That would be work as well.



How do you know any of this would happen?  Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you how allowing snowboarding would affect business levels?

What happened at Taos?  How much has their business increased by allowing snowboarding?

I'm sorry, but your argument is pure conjecture, which really amounts to "scare tactics" to defend the status quo.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> How do you know any of this would happen?  Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you how allowing snowboarding would affect business levels?
> 
> What happened at Taos?  How much has their business increased by allowing snowboarding?
> 
> I'm sorry, but your argument is pure conjecture, which really amounts to "scare tactics" to defend the status quo.



So... Your crystal ball says if they allow snowboarding there bottom line WILL improve. I didn't know AZ was so full of Fortune tellers.. 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> So... Your crystal ball says if they allow snowboarding there bottom line WILL improve. I didn't know AZ was so full of Fortune tellers..
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Never once did I make any claims on business levels, bottom line etc.  I never brought up money and never would because I don't know.  I don't have a Crystal Ball.  AND from my understanding, MRG is doing just fine financially.  

My argument is philosophical.  Nothing more.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> How do you know any of this would happen?  Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you how allowing snowboarding would affect business levels?
> 
> What happened at Taos?  How much has their business increased by allowing snowboarding?
> 
> I'm sorry, but your argument is pure conjecture, which really amounts to "scare tactics" to defend the status quo.



I was a pass holder for 5 years and no many of the board members so I think I have at least a little more insight than the average person. Taos is a completely different animal. They have a hell of a lot better lift capacity and acreage as well as better natural snowfall. Nor are they a Co-op that relies primarily on the income generated from passholders.

How do you presume to know what the intentions are of a complete stranger? I'm for snowboarders at MRG but things infrastructure would need to change and I'm not sure if they can afford it.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> How do you know any of this would happen?  Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you how allowing snowboarding would affect business levels?
> 
> What happened at Taos?  How much has their business increased by allowing snowboarding?
> .



Forget much?!? 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 19, 2014)

No one is saying that by allowing snowboarders you have to cater to them. I want to ride at MRG and the last thing I want is for them to change the way they do things. I want to go there because I like natural, ungroomed terrain. There are a lot of snowboarders that don't care about parks and man-made features.
There are not many places where terrain like MRG's can be found. That's why I'm annoyed by the ban. Plus, a lot of my riding partners are skiers. If they decide to go to MRG, or either of the others with bans, I'm assed out. The fact is there's no logical reason to disallow snowboards. They are doing it based on a prejudice against people that snowboard, or at least to cater to people with that prejudice, and anyone who says differently is full of shit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> Forget much?!?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Point out my comment.  I'm not too proud to eat my words.  If I made an emphatic comment on how much business would improve, I was wrong in doing so.  It stands to reason that business would increase some; how much, I don't know.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> The fact is there's no logical reason to disallow snowboards. They are doing it based on a prejudice against people that snowboard, or at least to cater to people with that prejudice, and anyone who says differently is full of shit.



1000%


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 19, 2014)

I don't know maybe it's just me. I have similar issues with reporters going into some hostile environment and complaining that local officials didn't allow them to get the story they wanted. Not everyone has the same rules! It will take more then some frivolous lawsuit to change all of that. 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 19, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> No one is saying that by allowing snowboarders you have to cater to them. I want to ride at MRG and the last thing I want is for them to change the way they do things. I want to go there because I like natural, ungroomed terrain. There are a lot of snowboarders that don't care about parks and man-made features.
> There are not many places where terrain like MRG's can be found. That's why I'm annoyed by the ban. Plus, a lot of my riding partners are skiers. If they decide to go to MRG, or either of the others with bans, I'm assed out. The fact is there's no logical reason to disallow snowboards. They are doing it based on a prejudice against people that snowboard, or at least to cater to people with that prejudice, and anyone who says differently is full of shit.



I understand man I think it would be great for the mountains long term sustainability. I do think they would need to make changes though to accommodate an uptick in riders whether it's snowboarders or skiers. I think the points I have made are fair questions that make it not as black and white as you mentioned.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I understand man I think it would be great for the mountains long term sustainability. I do think they would need to make changes though to accommodate an uptick in riders whether it's snowboarders or skiers. I think the points I have made are fair questions that make it not as black and white as you mentioned.



I really doubt the issue is financial or has anything to do with infrastructure. As DHS said before, all they would have to do is limit the number of tickets sold per day.  

If all they did was allow snowboarders, and didn't change anything else, no extra grooming, no parks, none of that, then they probably wouldn't have a lot of snowboarders coming anyway. It would just be guys like me that want to experience the terrain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 19, 2014)

Hope to see you ride there someday C-Rex.  Anyone who's passionate about sliding on snow in the Northeast should get to experience MRG....one plank or two......don't matter.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

People who try to tell other people how to run their business are dicks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

We went over this in another thread steamboat1.  I honestly don't care what you think of me. But, by all means, keep trying to express those feelings if that's what helps you make it through your day.


----------



## abc (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I honestly don't care what you think of me.


And I wouldn't be surprised the shareholders of MRG don't care about what you think of them either.

Kettles don't have eyes to look into a mirror to see how different their color is from those of pots...


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 20, 2014)

So to be clear you both are suggesting expressing an opinion on a forum is akin to telling people how to run their business?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> What happened at Taos?  How much has their business increased by allowing snowboarding?


Doesn't sound like it improved much. This is what the COO of Taos had to say when speaking about adding new lifts.

Taos Ski Valley chief  operating officer Gordon Briner says thanks to fairly good snow over  two of the past three years, as well as the ski area's decision four  years ago to open its trails to snowboarders, skier visits have  increased, "*but not to the extent that we really had hoped*, and that's  why we think these improvements are important."

​


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> If MRG has capacity issues in regards to parking, snowmaking and lift capacity, then determine what the comfortable carrying capacity is of the area and restrict ticket sales to address the issue.
> Those are issues independent of how someone chooses to slide downhill.



Deer Valley already limits it's lift ticket sales. Guess what? They don't allow snowboarders.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

SnowRock said:


> So to be clear you both are suggesting expressing an opinion on a forum is akin to telling people how to run their business?



Let me refrase. People who call other people dicks because they decided not to allow snowboarders are the dicks.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 20, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Let me refrase. People who call other people dicks because they decided not to allow snowboarders are the dicks.



People who defend dickhead behavior, like not allowing snowboarders for no good reason, are trolling, self-righteous asshats.  And I only hope anyone of the opposite sex realizes it before they have a chance to breed.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> People who defend dickhead behavior, like not allowing snowboarders for no good reason, are trolling, self-righteous asshats.  And I only hope anyone of the opposite sex realizes it before they have a chance to breed.



LOL, to late.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 20, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> LOL, to late.



This is why the human race is doomed.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

Steamboat do you think snowboarders should be allowed at MRG, Alta or Deer Valley.   If not, why?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

I think it's their decision to make & don't berate them for doing so like some others I know.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

That's fine, but you didn't answer my question.  I asked what your opinion is as to whether or not snowboarders should be allowed at MRG.  My question was not about MRG's stance, it was about your stance.

I'll try and make it real simple for you.  Would you mind snowboarders at MRG when you ski there?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> That's fine, but you didn't answer my question.  I asked what your opinion is as to whether or not snowboarders should be allowed at MRG.  My question was not about MRG's stance, it was about your stance.
> 
> I'll try and make it real simple for you.  Would you mind snowboarders at MRG when you ski there?


I thought you didn't care about what I think. You're so damn confusing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

No, I said I don't care what you think of me.  

So, would you mind sharing the slopes at MRG with snowboarders?  If not, why?


----------



## marcski (Jan 20, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> I thought you didn't care about what I think. You're so damn confusing.





deadheadskier said:


> No, I said I don't care what you think of me.
> 
> So, would you mind sharing the slopes at MRG with snowboarders?  If not, why?




You guys are like the new Puck It/DMC old, married fighting couple.:argue: :argue:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

marcski said:


> You guys are like the new Puck It/DMC old, married fighting couple.:argue: :argue:



careful marc.  I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat.  you might send him over the edge......


----------



## abc (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> careful marc.  I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat.  you might send him over the edge......


In NH, there's no longer any need of "discussion" about marriage of two males...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

abc said:


> In NH, there's no longer any need of "discussion" about marriage of two males...



I'm well aware.  Same for NY, much to the dismay of steamboat.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm going to say this up front in the hopes to allay the notion that I'm biased against snowboarders: I'm not biased against snowboarders and I have many friends that ride, and I ski/ride with them often.

Having said that, and at the risk of being flamed  . Are we sure the reason MRG votes against allowing snowboards has anything to do with some ancient prejudices of persons, or culture, etc? What I haven't heard anyone say on this tread, and what strikes me as the most probable reason to continue the ban, is that snowboards "can" alter the way the terrain wears; especially the bumps.

I put "can" in quotes, because obviously a skilled rider will not sideslip down a double black bump run and therefore not make much difference over a pair of wide boards.

But, it is a common perception that snowboards allow an unskilled rider to take on advanced terrain more easily by nature of the tool; the ability to hang on and just sideslip is easier with the standard offset body mount on a board ( I realize there are other binding mount configurations for boards, i.e carving boards ). Of course, skiers can side slip too, but it gets mighty uncomfortable to do for very long. 

MRG has no snowmaking on it's advanced terrain and they often close the upper mountain in an effort to preserve the terrain. They often give up a days ticket sales, and take a change that the can preserve the experience for a later date. I have no inside knowledge to their snowboarding ban decision process; but I wouldn't be surprised if it has to with terrain preservation.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

Fair argument for MRG.  I'm not sure that applies for Alta or Deer Valley though........at least not to the same degree.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 20, 2014)

Maybe MRG ought to ban shaped skis, too. Any equipment manufactured after 1995 or so, perhaps.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 20, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Maybe MRG ought to ban shaped skis, too. Any equipment manufactured after 1995 or so, perhaps.



lol.... that's a good point. imo, nowadays, what's helps in shaping the bumps are the teleskiers.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 20, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I'm going to say this up front in the hopes to allay the notion that I'm biased against snowboarders: I'm not biased against snowboarders and I have many friends that ride, and I ski/ride with them often.
> 
> Having said that, and at the risk of being flamed  . Are we sure the reason MRG votes against allowing snowboards has anything to do with some ancient prejudices of persons, or culture, etc? What I haven't heard anyone say on this tread, and what strikes me as the most probable reason to continue the ban, is that snowboards "can" alter the way the terrain wears; especially the bumps.
> 
> ...



I skied Taos a month before they lifted the ban and about ten days after....It happened in the month of March. I could tell zero difference at all, none. MRG may be different as the size is smaller?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 20, 2014)

Theres no difference. 

In fact, most powder skis (if you put them next to each other) are way wider than snowboards. 

My wifes Volkl Shiros 173 length have at least 25% more surface area than my Salmon Burner 163. They are laughably large.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Fair argument for MRG.  I'm not sure that applies for Alta or Deer Valley though........at least not to the same degree.



Out of everything you consider that a fair argument?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 20, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Here's the difference. That golf course holds one of the premier golf tournaments in big TV money ( think advertisement $$ ) sports.



Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.



deadheadskier said:


> It does come up in shareholder meetings. Shareholders have mentioned it in these forums several times over the years.  Their right as owners to be dicks and keep voting snowboarders out. * There's no good reason to vote that way other than to be a dick.*



That's really a childish way to view the situation.  I'm genuinely surprised you cannot comprehend the niche market they've created, whether intentionally or by complete accident.   

My personal opinion is that if MRG changed nothing, and operated in an environment like every other ski resort and allowed skiers and snowboarders, then MRG would be closed right now, and I dont mean because of lack of snow.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Out of everything you consider that a fair argument?



I don't know if snowboarding pushes more snow off ski trails or not.  Sounds like a good "Mythbusters" episode. 

I only said its a fair argument because the claim was that a specific form of snow sliding (snowboarding) is more harmful to a delicate snowpack and that's the reason for the ban.  It's a thin argument in my mind, but a fair one.

That differs from your increased traffic argument, not that I think your comments weren't valid concerns.  Its just that those same arguments could be made against increasing their marketing budget or lowering ticket costs.  Those are volume issues independent of mode of travel.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *I don't know if snowboarding pushes more snow off ski trails or not.
> 
> Sounds like a good "Mythbusters" episode. *



I've always just assumed snowboarding erodes snow much more than skiing.  Seems pretty self-evident to me.  

Though, to be clear, it's because of kids and beginner/crappy snowboarders.  I do not think decent intermediate or advanced and expert snowboarders push any more snow off trails than skiers do.  

It's the solo grinding edge moving 40 yards down a trail too steep for their ability, or that solo grinding edge on the edge of the trail continuously plowing snow in one direction, off the trail, that does the damage.  It would make for a good Mythbuster topic.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you think the business would suffer by allowing snowboarding?  The niche market would be compromised?

Interesting POV.  In stark contrast to MadmadWorld's theory that allowing snowboarding would increase business levels to a point the current facilities could not support. 

But, again, never once have I made any claim to how allowing or disallowing snowboarding at MRG, Alta or DV would affect business.  My objection is purely philosophical.  I don't like businesses and or people who are prejudiced.  My view is that the fundamental reason all three areas don't allow snowboarding is that they're prejudiced.  I could be wrong.....but that's my view.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Money has absolutely nothing to do with The Masters decision to do or not to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Don't be so sure, grasshopper. 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...masters-facing-questions-on-ceo-s-club-access


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 20, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> *Don't be so sure*, grasshopper.



I am 100% sure, just as I am sure that you're clearly not a golf fan or you'd know more about "Masters economics", which would be about as basic as skiers not knowing the FIS events.


EDIT:  Ehhh...... and I just took the 24 seconds to look at the article you linked, which.....says nothing relevant to the point you're attempting to prove.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> My personal opinion is that if MRG changed nothing, and operated in an environment like every other ski resort and allowed skiers and snowboarders, then MRG would be closed right now, and I dont mean because of lack of snow.



I agree. MRG attracts a faithful core that will endure the crappiest conditions when the snow pack is poor, just to have those, sometimes few and far between, days when the conditions are ripe, and, sorry to say, no beginner-intermediate snowboarders scraping the bumps away.  As for Alta and DV, if they allowed snowboarding, I don't think it would close them - esp. DV. Alta attracts a a skier only core, like MRG, but their unique low moisture powder is their real claim to fame, and that would remain even with the addition of snowboadering.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 20, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I agree. MRG attracts a faithful core that will endure the crappiest conditions when the snow pack is poor, just to have those, sometimes few and far between, days when the conditions are ripe, and, sorry to say, no beginner-intermediate snowboarders scraping the bumps away.  As for Alta and DV, if they allowed snowboarding, I don't think it would close them - esp. DV. Alta attracts a a skier only core, like MRG, but their unique low moisture powder is their real claim to fame, and that would remain even with the addition of snowboadering.



DV's clientele don't want snowboards.  And its majority owner has a clause in the corporate bylaws stating that if the rest of the ownership approves snowboarding that they must buy out his ownership.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I am 100% sure, just as I am sure that you're clearly not a golf fan or you'd know more about "Masters economics", which would be about as basic as skiers not knowing the FIS events.
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Ehhh...... and I just took the 24 seconds to look at the article you linked, which.....says nothing relevant to the point you're attempting to prove.


 :lol: :lol: You're funny. Go learn something about how the movers and shakers make things happen. Who makes up the 300 members at Augusta? Which gender has the largest purchasing power right now?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 20, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> DV's clientele don't want snowboards.  And its majority owner has a clause in the corporate bylaws stating that if the rest of the ownership approves snowboarding that they must buy out his ownership.



Interesting.


----------



## abc (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> So you think the business would suffer by allowing snowboarding?  The niche market would be compromised?


Whether the business will suffer or benefit, it'll all be speculations. I, like many others, think the difference is insignificant either way. This is supported by what Taos finding out a year after they allow boarder access.

What's indisputable is the "niche market" part. Any business wants to stand out. Only 3 not allowing snowboarders, that's "niche" enough. 

Just like some pro football player deliberately cultivate a "bad boy" image to capture publicity. MRG and Deer Valley, and to a lessor degree Alta, are having a lot of free publicity they didn't need to spend a penny to generate! Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity. However much snowboarder get mad till they foam in their mouth, it's skiers these resorts are trying to attract. There's no negative on that! 

In short, I believe the resorts gets net benefit from the "skier only" niche.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 20, 2014)

You call it a "niche"

I call it being prejudice.


----------



## abc (Jan 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> You call it a "niche"
> 
> I call it being prejudice.


I can understand anyone who's not part of the niche consider it prejudice.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 20, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> :lol: :lol: You're funny. Go learn something about how the movers and shakers make things happen. Who makes up the 300 members at Augusta? Which gender has the largest purchasing power right now?



Oh, you GOOG the fact Augusta National has roughly 300 members?     

Great, now GOOG who they are and a little bit about the history of the tournament and perhaps you'll gain a sense of how foolish you sound.



deadheadskier said:


> You call it a "niche"
> 
> I call it being prejudice.



As opposed to all the great niches of the world representative of majorities?

And you still havent addressed (several times) whether you personally believe MRG could have financially survived all these years without said niche.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 21, 2014)

abc said:


> I can understand anyone who's not part of the niche consider it prejudice.



Which is weird cause he's deadheadSKIER,  not deadheadSNOWBOARDER?!? 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 21, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> careful marc.  I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat.  you might send him over the edge......





deadheadskier said:


> I'm well aware.  Same for NY, much to the dismay of steamboat.


Wow you're F'd up.

Lick my balls.

What's that called teabagging......lol


----------



## wakenbacon (Jan 21, 2014)

Terrain wise, from what ive seen, I would love to ride mrg. I really dont understand why skiers dont want to share their slopes with me, but if they own the mountain, let them do their thing. Alta, on federal land, not allowing one plank, I do not respect.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> And you still havent addressed (several times) whether you personally believe MRG could have financially survived all these years without said niche.



I don't know and neither do you.  Happy?

You believe the lack of snowboarders is what has allowed the mountain to survive over the years.  MadMadWorld (a five year season pass holder there) believes the opposite would be true, that snowboarding would bring in business levels that the facilities can't handle.

Fact is, nobody knows what would happen unless they allowed snowboarding.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> Which is weird cause he's deadheadSKIER,  not deadheadSNOWBOARDER?!?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



What's so weird about a skier being against an anti-snowboarding policy?


----------



## Nick (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't really have strong opinions as there are so many great places to ski but if there was a resort that didn't allow skiers, I don't think it would bother me in the least. 

Now, if there were 50 resorts that didn't allow skiers, I would probably be irked by it, because it limits selection. But there are so many other places to go. 

I have to think though that Alta being one of the only remaining ski-only places probably definitely attracts people there for that reason specifically. I'm sure a portion of their visitors are people who go specifically to avoid snowboarders. I don't know what that says about those skiers... I know there was that youtube video floating around a while ago .... but I just don't see it as such a huge deal. Personally anyway.


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 21, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> What's so weird about a skier being against an anti-snowboarding policy?



I just don't understand why it bothers you so much? 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 21, 2014)

abc said:


> Whether the business will suffer or benefit, it'll all be speculations. I, like many others, think the difference is insignificant either way. This is supported by what Taos finding out a year after they allow boarder access.
> 
> What's indisputable is the "niche market" part. Any business wants to stand out. Only 3 not allowing snowboarders, that's "niche" enough.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't think MRG continuing the ban on snowboarding is to maintain a niche. Maybe it was at first but I don't think that's the case anymore. I could be wrong though.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 21, 2014)

So these places get more business from being skier only and appealing to that niche, but couldn't handle more business with snowboarders being allowed to ride? They can't handle boards on their trails but do fine with everyone that rocks 100+ under foot? 

There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. I think its pretty clear that they exist to appeal to smug elitists who believe their chosen method of winter mountain recreation somehow makes them a better person or at least doesn't include a certain undesirable sort they prefer not to share a mountain with. Just own it, its silly to try explain it away and looks foolish.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2014)

twinplanx said:


> I just don't understand why it bothers you so much?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Look, I still ski there.  I've said they can run their business how they choose.  If I was really THAT bothered I wouldn't spend money there.

I just feel that everyone should be able to enjoy the slopes at those mountains.  The fact that there are people who are still prejudiced against snowboarding in 2014 blows my mind.  I think it's wrong.


----------



## abc (Jan 21, 2014)

SnowRock said:


> There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. *I think*...


There's also nothing wrong with anyone to have an opinion about anything... they can even put their wallet where their heart is, by not patronizing those few resorts.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 21, 2014)

So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 21, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2



They are and it's fine. I was a member of the UL when I lived in NYC. Nothing wrong with these sorts of things just own what it is.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 21, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2



Interesting point, and perfectly valid.  I'll admit that it's a sort of double standard.  However, the reasons behind having a private mountain are much more logical and understandable, even if it sucks for those without the income to partake.  The desire to have very low numbers on the trails and lifts alone is understandable.  And in order to create that experience, they need to charge outrageous amounts to make up for the lack of volume.  Plus, those without the money to join can still ski/ride there if they have a friend or family with a membership.  It's not like they check your W2 on the way in.





SnowRock said:


> There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. I think its pretty clear that they exist to appeal to smug elitists who believe their chosen method of winter mountain recreation somehow makes them a better person or at least doesn't include a certain undesirable sort they prefer not to share a mountain with. Just own it, its silly to try explain it away and looks foolish.



Thank you!!!  My point exactly.  It's perfectly legal to be a pompous a-hole, just own it.


----------



## abc (Jan 21, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> Interesting point, and perfectly valid.  I'll admit that it's a sort of double standard.  However, the reasons behind having a private mountain are much more logical and understandable, even if it sucks for those without the income to partake.  The desire to have very low numbers on the trails and lifts alone is understandable.  And in order to create that experience, they need to charge outrageous amounts to make up for the lack of volume.


I don't see what the difference is! It's a special experience they try to maintain. Whether it's empty runs or better shaped moguls!



> Plus, those without the money to join can still ski/ride there if they have a friend or family with a membership. It's not like they check your W2 on the way in.


Anyone can SKI at Alta. 

I'm told if you hand them your board, they'll even give you a pair of skis for free!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 21, 2014)

Better shaped bumps?  Last I checked the resort that most hardcore bumpers believe to have the best bumps in the east, Sugarbush, is right down the road.  Allowing snowboarding certainly hasn't ruined the bumps at the Bush.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 21, 2014)

I never bought into the adage that a skier can form bumps better. A boarder that understands how moguls form can do just as good of a job.


----------



## abc (Jan 21, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I never bought into the adage that a skier can form bumps better. A boarder that understands how moguls form can do just as good of a job.


Trouble is, it takes more than one skier to form bumps. Or more than one boarder. 

Tell me there're a lot of boarders "understands how moguls form"... 

(I'm not a choosy bump skier, I ski any, even though I do find some differences)


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, you GOOG the fact Augusta National has roughly 300 members?
> 
> Great, now GOOG who they are and a little bit about the history of the tournament and perhaps you'll gain a sense of how foolish you sound.
> 
> ...



I don't have to, I work for one of them. And, I know a little bit about the history and some of the back story. You presume too much, but that seems to be your MO. The only one sounding foolish is you my friend because you can't bit 2-2 together. Now, let's stop c#@ting up this thread and move on; it's not about Augusta National or the Masters.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 21, 2014)

In other news, the upper mountain opens back up tomorrow. Anyone heading up there for Roll Back the Clock? $3.50 next Tuesday!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 21, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I know a little bit about the history and some of the back story.



Obviously not or you wouldn't have made a statement representing the antithesis of said "history".




abc said:


> Trouble is, it takes more than one skier to form bumps. Or more than one boarder.
> 
> Tell me there're a lot of boarders "understands how moguls form"...



Again, it's a problem of less skilled snowboarders and kids that do the "mogul mashing" - competent snowboarders can negotiate the baby moguls that are in the process of forming, with ease.  And 95% of snowboarders will avoid legitimate mogul trails like the plague anyhow, so once you have a solid mogul field in place, snowboarders aren't going to damage it.  

IMO, young snowboarders are enemy #1 to growing moguls, because for some reason they think it's cool to go down "lumpty" terrain, except they cant, so they just side-scrape for 50 yards. Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Ugh, it's like daggers to my ears.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> IMO, young snowboarders are enemy #1 to growing moguls, because for some reason they think it's cool to go down "lumpty" terrain, except they cant, so they just side-scrape for 50 yards. Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Ugh, it's like daggers to my ears.



It's not only in the moguls but everywhere. Why do they even bother, how much fun can that be?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> It's not only in the moguls but everywhere. Why do they even bother, how much fun can that be?



Judging by the smiles I see on the faces of young learning snowboarders (and skiers).....very fun.

I know I had a blast as a youth barely surviving the expert trails.  It was a complete rush just to make it down Outer Limits as a 9 year old.  The experience made me want to get better so I could ski those trails like the expert skiers I looked up to making it down with ease. With years of practice, I eventually could.

Let's face it.  We all sucked at one point or another.  If we weren't having fun, we wouldn't have stuck with the sport.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> In other news, the upper mountain opens back up tomorrow. Anyone heading up there for Roll Back the Clock? $3.50 next Tuesday!



Maybe, depends on the snow. I'll be within striking distance. I was there for the $6.50 50th anniversary tickets at Mt. Ellen two weeks ago. It was a good day.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Judging by the smiles I see on the faces of young learning snowboarders (and skiers).....very fun.
> 
> I know I had a blast as a youth barely surviving the expert trails.  It was a complete rush just to make it down Outer Limits as a 9 year old.  The experience made me want to get better so I could ski those trails like the expert skiers I looked up to making it down with ease. With years of practice, I eventually could.
> 
> Let's face it.  We all sucked at one point or another.  If we weren't having fun, we wouldn't have stuck with the sport.


Very few boarders ever learn to ride moguls. Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Ugh, it's like daggers to my ears.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 22, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Very few boarders ever learn to ride moguls. Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  Ugh, it's like daggers to my ears.



MRG has trails that are less steep that would be great for skiers and riders to get better.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 22, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> It's not only in the moguls but everywhere. Why do they even bother, how much fun can that be?



I guess you must've been born an expert.  Have you ever tried snowboarding?  Something tells me the answer is no. Do you realize that snowboarding is, in most opinions, much more difficult to learn (as a beginner, skiing is harder to become an expert at) than skiing?  Going from edge to edge is a very unnatural movement and it takes a long time to get the balance, muscle control, and feel down to where it's second nature.  But when it finally clicks, the feeling is amazing.  You're literally surfing the earth.

How about this?  We'll meet up at a mountain.  I'll rent skis (I've never been on them before) and you rent a board.  We'll see who's doing better at the end of the day.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 22, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Judging by the smiles I see on the faces of young learning snowboarders (and skiers).....very fun.
> 
> I know I had a blast as a youth barely surviving the expert trails.  It was a complete rush just to make it down Outer Limits as a 9 year old.  The experience made me want to get better so I could ski those trails like the expert skiers I looked up to making it down with ease. With years of practice, I eventually could.
> 
> Let's face it.  We all sucked at one point or another.  If we weren't having fun, we wouldn't have stuck with the sport.



+1


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2014)

This is still going......

Amazing.  This puts the annual MRG threads to shame.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2014)

Two of the lawyers talked with the SL Tribune regarding the suit in a 30 minute blog video:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57407027-78/tribtalk-snowboarders-alta-com.html.csp

I'm not convinced that they have a case.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 22, 2014)

Wait...this thread is about a lawsuit?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> Wait...this thread is about a lawsuit?



Yes.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2014)

C-Rex said:


> Do you realize that *snowboarding is, in most opinions, much more difficult to learn* (as a beginner, skiing is harder to become an expert at) *than skiing?*



You've said this before......in several threads.....it's not true.

As someone who worked 6 winters at one of the larger beginner areas on the east coast, I promise you it's false.  

It also flies in the face of generally accepted convention. 

 Snowboarding is easier to learn than skiing, and it's obvious if you simply look at XYZ cohort of never-ever boarders and XYZ cohort of never-ever skiers who arrive at the resort on the same day of a 7 day vacation.  The boarders will, on balance, be more advanced than the skiers at "go home time" of day 7.

As for which is harder to become an "expert" at, I have no idea.  Havent really thought about that, and I dont have the same experience to know.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 22, 2014)

I wasn't even talking about beginners.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You've said this before......in several threads.....it's not true.
> 
> As someone who worked 6 winters at one of the larger beginner areas on the east coast, I promise you it's false.
> 
> ...



There is no data to back either side of the argument. Everyone differs in their observation and experiences. Through my experience I believe snowboarding is harder to learn. Although I will say that I learned to snowboard in my 20s and ski when I was 4 so my opinion is based purely on observation. I couldn't tell you if becoming an expert at skiing is harder since I am at best an intermediate boarder.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> *I wasn't even talking about beginners*.



What do you mean then?  Advanced snowboarders dont mogul mash.

  If you hear the dreaded _Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh_ sound, it's pretty much a given they're not good snowboarders.



MadMadWorld said:


> *Through my experience *I believe snowboarding is harder to learn. Although I will say that *I learned to snowboard in my 20s* *and ski when I was 4* so my opinion is based purely on observation.



Yes, you've said that before in the same thread I was referencing, and you cant base it on that, as you're inserting flawed logic into the calculus.  You need to look at it from the standpoint of similar cohorts starting from precisely the same baseline, just like a scientific study would.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do you mean then?  Advanced snowboarders dont mogul mash.
> 
> If you hear the dreaded _Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh_ sound, it's pretty much a given they're not good snowboarders.
> 
> ...



You just said that your basing your opinion off observation so how is that any better?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 22, 2014)

I could care less about the skill level or what method some chooses to slide down a trail I'm skiing on, mogul trail or otherwise.  Yes I'm aware some styles of snow sliding can damage conditions more quickly than others.  As long as they are following the code and not cutting me or others off I really don't care.

 Getting upset and supporting policies that restrict access to such skiers or riders is the skiing equivalent of "get off my lawn" IMO.   That Alta video at the start of the thread supports that belief.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 22, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> You just said that your basing your opinion off observation so how is that any better?



Because it's HIS observation.  Forget the fact that he's discounting all the other variables in his "scientific" study.  Things like age, general athleticism, experience with activities that parallel skiing/boarding, skill of the instructor, etc.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> You just said that your basing* your opinion off observation so how is that any better?*



Because my observation is exactly how that sort of "study" would be made. 

With equal-aged cohorts at precisely the same baseline, getting precisely the same hours of instruction, on precisely the same terrain, for precisely the same number of days.  If a true study of such a thing were made, that's exactly how it would be structured.  So on this subject, I consider my "observation" to be pretty dang good.   The beginning snowboarders were generally substantially more advanced than the beginning skiers in their abilities and terrain-handling when they left.  Enough so that you would definitely notice.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because my observation is exactly how that sort of "study" would be made.
> 
> With equal-aged cohorts at precisely the same baseline, getting precisely the same hours of instruction, on precisely the same terrain, for precisely the same number of days.  If a true study of such a thing were made, that's exactly how it would be structured.  So on this subject, I consider my "observation" to be pretty dang good.   The beginning snowboarders were generally substantially more advanced than the beginning skiers in their abilities and terrain-handling when they left.  Enough so that you would definitely notice.



I had 8 seasons of observation as a ski instructor and talking with snowboard instructors as well. I taught at 2 mountains that would both be considered learning mountains. A true study on this matter would really be taken with a grain of salt. How do you quantify a person's prgression? It's all subjective.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 22, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> *A true study on this matter would really be taken with a grain of salt.* How do you quantify a person's prgression? *It's all subjective*.



You could do a "true study" on this if you cared, and it could be done qualitatively and quantitatively, not all subjectively.  

Regardless, whenever this subject comes up you and C-Rex make this argument.  It completely flies in the face of the generally accepted belief that skiing is more difficult to learn than snowboarding.  I dont even think we need a Mythbusters episode for this.  

Seems like common sense to me that 4 edges are harder to learn to control than 2 edges.  

Seems to me like 2 loose legs operating non-independently and the numerous ways this alters and can throw you off axis/balance is harder to initially learn to control and maintain (not to mention the beginning skier nemesis of tip-hooking).

Seems to me that having poles and learning what to do with them is a completely separate skill that exists in one sport that doesnt even exist in the other sport.    

I could go on, but the WHY, admittedly is the subjective part.  The way I mentioned a study would be run is not.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do you mean then?  Advanced snowboarders dont mogul mash.
> 
> If you hear the dreaded _Scritchshhhhhhhhhhhhhh_ sound, it's pretty much a given they're not good snowboarders.



Snowboarders at all levels will make that sound sometimes. Its because the weight of a rider is only being applied to a single edge versus two in the case of a skier. So while I may agree that bad snowboarders can more easily sideslip for longer periods of time down a hill, I actually disagree that the boards themselves cause more damage, they simply make a different sound because all of the weight is being applied to one edge and its easier to hear therefore skiers assume its moving more snow when its not.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You could do a "true study" on this if you cared, and it could be done qualitatively and quantitatively, not all subjectively.
> 
> Regardless, whenever this subject comes up you and C-Rex make this argument.  It completely flies in the face of the generally accepted belief that skiing is more difficult to learn than snowboarding.  I dont even think we need a Mythbusters episode for this.
> 
> ...



I think you have me and DHS confused. I actually agreed with you throughout most of this thread but you lost me with this one. 

I doubt you can get either a qualitative or quantitative study for the simple fact that skiing and snowboarding are 2 different sports and progression is measured completely different.


----------



## C-Rex (Jan 22, 2014)

I love flying in the face of things.  :razz:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 22, 2014)

So I've deliberated on this one long and hard, and I've only got one thing to say:


----------



## twinplanx (Jan 22, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> This is still going......
> 
> Amazing.  This puts the annual MRG threads to shame.



Lol yeah, this thread at least, has legs... Smh

We REALLY need a big dump in the mountains. Coastal storms are a waste :-(  

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I suppose so, but it just gives me a slightly negative "gimmicy" view of Skullcandy now.   Then again, I'm not their 17 year old target demo.



I would have thought by naming their brand Skullcandy they were going for the whole gimmicky, slightly negative image in the first place.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 22, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because my observation is exactly how that sort of "study" would be made.
> 
> With equal-aged cohorts at precisely the same baseline, getting precisely the same hours of instruction, on precisely the same terrain, for precisely the same number of days.  If a true study of such a thing were made, that's exactly how it would be structured.  So on this subject, I consider my "observation" to be pretty dang good.   The beginning snowboarders were generally substantially more advanced than the beginning skiers in their abilities and terrain-handling when they left.  Enough so that you would definitely notice.


Again, a REAL life study: Taos skis the EXACT same now as it did before lifting the ban. That is my observation.


----------



## 4aprice (Jan 23, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> So I've deliberated on this one long and hard, and I've only got one thing to say:



I just believe there is a market for skier only.  Snowboarders may not like it but I believe that many who go to Deer Valley go because of it.  If that market dies you will see boarders on all of them.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 23, 2014)

4aprice said:


> I just believe there is a market for skier only.  Snowboarders may not like it but I believe that many who go to Deer Valley go because of it.  If that market dies you will see boarders on all of them.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



People go to Deer Valley because they're self important douches. Talk about a mountain I will never visit.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 23, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> People go to Deer Valley because they're self important douches. Talk about a mountain I will never visit.



Surprisingly that has not been my experience.....


----------



## marcski (Jan 23, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> People go to Deer Valley because they're self important douches. Talk about a mountain I will never visit.



You seem Mad.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Surprisingly that has not been my experience.....



Surprisingly?

I'd be surprised were it actually like that.  Cant wait to get there someday, supposedly the tree skiing is fantastic.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 23, 2014)

Deer Valley is great skiing IMO. Sure there is a high concentration of wealth but most of those people are fine....and many can't handle the good stuff DV has to offer. I skied Northstar today, same sorta thing. Almost everyone is nice if you're nice first. If they're not then fuck em


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Deer Valley is great skiing IMO. *Sure there is a high concentration of wealth but most of those people are fine*....



Ohhhhh.....we're talking garden-variety anti-wealthy people jealousy stuff? 

  Now I feel naive, I should have known.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Ohhhhh.....we're talking garden-variety anti-wealthy people jealousy stuff?
> 
> Now I feel naive, I should have known.


I don't quite follow


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2014)

snoseek said:


> I don't quite follow



I didnt understand the seemingly bizarre hate directed at a ski resort.    Makes sense now.  Wealth bigotry....sadly on the rise in this country.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Ohhhhh.....we're talking garden-variety anti-wealthy people jealousy stuff?
> 
> Now I feel naive, I should have known.



Haha jealousy not so much I just choose to surround myself with the types of people that go there and it has nothing to do with their bank account. Not to mention the lift ticket price should be based on the skiing/riding experience and not how many slope side spas and restaurants there are. Why would I pay $114 for a 1 day lift ticket at Deer Valley when I can 2 days of skiing at Brighton for $120! The terrain is basically identical and folks are a lot friendlier.


Oh and they let kids 7 or younger ski for free!


----------



## abc (Jan 23, 2014)

marcski said:


> You seem Mad.


\
He IS mad. Just that he doesn't know that. Instead, he think the world is mad.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 23, 2014)

abc said:


> \
> He IS mad. Just that he doesn't know that. Instead, he think the world is mad.



I would say that I'm fired up but the world is definitely mad


----------



## snoseek (Jan 23, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Haha jealousy not so much I just choose to surround myself with the types of people that go there and it has nothing to do with their bank account. Not to mention the lift ticket price should be based on the skiing/riding experience and not how many slope side spas and restaurants there are. Why would I pay $114 for a 1 day lift ticket at Deer Valley when I can 2 days of skiing at Brighton for $120! The terrain is basically identical and folks are a lot friendlier.
> 
> 
> Oh and they let kids 7 or younger ski for free!


You forgot to add the steadier, more consistent, deeper snow. DV is a fun change but the Wasatch back in general isn't what I want to ski when in Utah. Honestly I'll be the weirdo that says they prefer The Canyons on that side


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2014)

snoseek said:


> *You forgot to add the steadier, more consistent, deeper snow. DV is a fun change but the Wasatch back in general isn't what I want to ski when in Utah. *Honestly I'll be the weirdo that says they prefer The Canyons on that side



It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 23, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.


Cook her something nice, buy her something, then break it to her that you need two weeks to "grow as a person".


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.



Girl friend? 

You mean like not your wife?

:blink:

What's the problem.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.



X mas week is not to crowded in Utah. Can't she go then?


----------



## 4aprice (Jan 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.



Not this year :angry:  but in past years the public school spring break here in NJ has been at a nice time to go to Utah.  I would say skip Park City and substitute Solitude but that's just my opinion.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 24, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It all sounds awesome to me.   Cant wait to do a Canyons/DV/PC/SB/Alta  trip someday and do a day at each.  Would have already happened by now  if not for the fact my gf is a teacher and cant get away long in the  winter.  We're actually considering a Portillo trip because of that.



 Just do it, you pussy. Man up and take your GF on a trip, show her you care :lol:  You only live once. You'll be year older next year and all that crap. 
 Presidents week. Sucks for flying because of the crowds, but if you can get a flight into SLC in the AM, you can be at Alta by noon for 1/2 day. You could  just go for 3-4 days during the mid-week that week, and when the traveling crowds should be light. Alta shouldn't be as crowded as the other resorts that week. Stay on the mountain if you can. Alta Peruvian lodge is nice for the $$, and you can ski the Bird from Alta with the duel ticket.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 25, 2014)

Not surprising, Alta has moved to dismiss the case:

http://fox13now.com/2014/03/24/alta-asks-judge-to-toss-snowboarders-lawsuit/


----------



## MadMadWorld (Mar 25, 2014)

In other news, everyone on flight 370 is dead.


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 7, 2014)

*Alta thinking about allowing snowboarding . I think they should*

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/great-alta-debate/

[h=1]The Great Alta Debate[/h]       [h=2]Alta filed a motion to dismiss the case against its skiers-only policy. But that doesn't mean snowboarders are out.[/h]                     by: Kade Krichko published:  April 7, 2014  19 Comments


27 



First  chair on Alta’s Wildcat lift. Whether snowboarders will ride this lift  in the near future is still to be seen. PHOTO: Jim Harris

 It seemed like a long time coming, but Alta’s “skiers versus  snowboarders” quarrel finally boiled over from barroom to courtroom this  January, when a group of snowboarders filed a formal complaint in  federal court alleging the Utah resort’s no-snowboarders policy violates  their Constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the  14th Amendment.
 After months of silence, a stoic Alta finally spoke its piece at the  end of March, and did so emphatically, filing a motion to dismiss the  case entirely. The snowboarder’s argument, according to the mountain,  would never hold up in court, didn’t deserve a trial, and was a gross  misinterpretation of the law.
 Said Alta’s lawyers in their most recent court filing, “It demeans  the Constitution to suggest that the amendment that protected the  interests of former slaves during Reconstruction…must be expanded to  protect the interests of those who engage in a particularized winter  sport.”
 Working in conjunction with snow sports advocacy group Wasatch  Equality, snowboarders Rick Alden, Drew Hicken, Richard Varga, and Bjorn  Leines had originally claimed that Alta’s no-snowboarders policy—a  policy dating back to the 1980s—was discriminatory by nature and should  not be allowed on the public land that Alta leases from the United  States Forest Service. The group maintained that snowboarders were being  kept from public land unlawfully, and that they were being denied  access to that land because of a general dislike, or animus, by the Alta  organization and community—a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal  Protection Clause.


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 7, 2014)

ScottySkis said:


>




I wonder what their plans are for the lawsuit that follows when someone falls off that lift.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 7, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> I wonder what their plans are for the lawsuit that follows when someone falls off that lift.



Hey sissypants, we don't live in a bubble and lifts like this exist all over the country. When was the last time you fell over sitting down? Im guessing never.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Apr 7, 2014)

I miss my chair at work at least once a week


----------



## Puck it (Apr 7, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Hey sissypants, we don't live in a bubble and lifts like this exist all over the country. When was the last time you fell over sitting down? Im guessing never.



At one point non of the lifts at Alta has safety bars.  Even the newer ones.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 7, 2014)

Puck it said:


> At one point non of the lifts at Alta has safety bars.  Even the newer ones.



People still fall off lifts with safety bars so you can only protect us so much from ourselves


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 7, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Hey sissypants, we don't live in a bubble and lifts like this exist all over the country. When was the last time you fell over sitting down? Im guessing never.



I guess if my desk chair were susceptible to being covered in snow and ice, moving at 5-10 mph and subject to random abrupt stops it wouldn't be all that uncommon.  Especially if I were a 40 pound kid wearing a quarter of my weight on my feet.  But yeah, improvements in safety should never be made.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 7, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> I guess if my desk chair were susceptible to being covered in snow and ice, moving at 5-10 mph and subject to random abrupt stops it wouldn't be all that uncommon.  Especially if I were a 40 pound kid wearing a quarter of my weight on my feet.  But yeah, improvements in safety should never be made.


 You really need to take up another sport, I suspect my bumper bowling suggestion from the Jay thread didn't pan out though, so maybe start with Bingo down at the Elks club, plenty safe.


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 7, 2014)

I don't get Alta not wanting more people for paying customers.


----------



## Rowsdower (Apr 7, 2014)

The point is that if somebody did fall off they could ask why Alta didn't take reasonable safety precautions common elsewhere. They might have a case. New regulations are put into place after accidents like that all the time.


----------



## AdironRider (Apr 7, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> The point is that if somebody did fall off they could ask why Alta didn't take reasonable safety precautions common elsewhere. They might have a case. New regulations are put into place after accidents like that all the time.



No they wouldn't, because the judge would just be like "this moron fell off a chair, that's his own dumbass fault".


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 7, 2014)

A lot of lifts at western resorts have no safety bars, you people need to get out more. Safety bars are an east coast thing, but they're moving west. Go ski west on an old non-bar double while you can.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 7, 2014)

Its funny, because this topic is normally good for a lengthy thread before being derailed. Thus one didn't even have a chance to get started. I guess banning snowboarders is played out.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 7, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> Its funny, because this topic is normally good for a lengthy thread before being derailed. Thus one didn't even have a chance to get started. I guess banning snowboarders is played out.



What was this thread about anyway?


----------



## Not Sure (Apr 7, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> A lot of lifts at western resorts have no safety bars, you people need to get out more. Safety bars are an east coast thing, but they're moving west. Go ski west on an old non-bar double while you can.


Complacancy is a bad thing , how many time does one ride a lift with complete confidence , I used to ride with the bar up untill I was at Hunter at the highest point off the ground near the summit, Freaking lift stops and goes backwards 100' !!!! I grabbed the side bar and pulled myself back onto the chair....Damn close to being off the edge.
Bars down right away now , call me a sissy but not falling of the front.


----------



## Rowsdower (Apr 7, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> No they wouldn't, because the judge would just be like "this moron fell off a chair, that's his own dumbass fault".



It's usually covered when you buy the ticket. You take responsibility for partaking in some potentially dangerous activities. That said, you'd be surprised what kind of damage some good lawyers could probably get away with.

And "they're a moron" isn't an excuse to improve safety.


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 7, 2014)

Iblike SLC chairlifts without the foot bar . neeex to vo back so my eges can see it again.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 7, 2014)

What do people with little kids do on a lift like that?  I dont have kids, but I know the whole lift bar thing and lift ride in general is anxiety causing for parents of small children.


----------



## Smellytele (Apr 8, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do people with little kids do on a lift like that?  I dont have kids, but I know the whole lift bar thing and lift ride in general is anxiety causing for parents of small children.



When my kids were small i would use my ski poles as a kind of bar. I would hold it across them and stick the other end in the arm rest bar.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 8, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do people with little kids do on a lift like that?  I dont have kids, but I know the whole lift bar thing and lift ride in general is anxiety causing for parents of small children.



I can't remember if the Wildcat chair had been updated, but two years ago most of the chairs at Alta now have cords for kids to pull the bars down and have dividers that go between your legs:


----------



## drjeff (Apr 8, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do people with little kids do on a lift like that?  I dont have kids, but I know the whole lift bar thing and lift ride in general is anxiety causing for parents of small children.



Speaking for personal experience - #1 before, during and even to an extent after the chair ride, I was telling my kids that absolutely no horsing around is even to be considered while riding on this lift!!!  #2 - while on the lift, I always had my arm around my kid and #3 as was mentioned below, I used  my poles as kind of a restraining bar across my kid while on the lift - this last one is something that many a kids ski instructor will teach parents to do while skiing with your kids and loading any lift before you can get the safety bar down


----------



## MadMadWorld (Apr 8, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Speaking for personal experience - #1 before, during and even to an extent after the chair ride, I was telling my kids that absolutely no horsing around is even to be considered while riding on this lift!!!  #2 - while on the lift, I always had my arm around my kid and #3 as was mentioned below, I used  my poles as kind of a restraining bar across my kid while on the lift - this last one is something that many a kids ski instructor will teach parents to do while skiing with your kids and loading any lift before you can get the safety bar down



Those are all solid things. That was always my biggest fear as an instructor (other than losing a kid). I used to do all of those things as an instructor.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Apr 8, 2014)

wa-loaf said:


> I can't remember if the Wildcat chair had been updated, but two years ago most of the chairs at Alta now have cords for kids to pull the bars down and have dividers that go between your legs:



One thing to point out from this pic. Put the kid in the middle of the chair. It at least eliminates one way they can fall out of the chair.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 8, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> One thing to point out from this pic. Put the kid in the middle of the chair. It at least eliminates one way they can fall out of the chair.



Using the safety bar in this case would accomplish that as well ...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Apr 8, 2014)

wa-loaf said:


> Using the safety bar in this case would accomplish that as well ...



Well I assumed people knew that already lol


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 8, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What do people with little kids do on a lift like that?  I dont have kids, but I know the whole lift bar thing and lift ride in general is anxiety causing for parents of small children.



Depends how little your kids are, but this is what I've seen: Reach your arm around the backrest and thru the opening at the botom of the rest and grab their ski jacket from behind and hold on. Alternatively, reach your hand across the front of them and hold.  

Interesting enough, the western lifts that don't have bars ( at least from my experience ) don't tend to stop abruptly like the lifts in the east. I'm sure a mechanical failure would make them jar to a stop, or lurch backwards, but anytime I've been on them and they've stopped, they seemed to have stopped smoothly. It's really not scary, but being I'm from the east, I tend to sit on the outside edge and have my hand on the vertical bar there - just in case.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 11, 2014)

Interesting op ed with some interesting comments below it on MRG:

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/end-snow-separatism/


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 11, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Interesting op ed with some interesting comments below it on MRG:
> 
> http://www.powdermag.com/stories/end-snow-separatism/



What did you find interesting about it?  To me it seemed like a rehash of the same old story with absolutely no new perspective or information. Same for the comments.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 11, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> What did you find interesting about it?  To me it seemed like a rehash of the same old story with absolutely no new perspective or information. Same for the comments.



The argument that I should not be in a position of defending where I ski to a snowboarding friend.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 12, 2014)

Is that something you've felt like you had to do in the past?  If so why?  Whose business is it where you ski?


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 12, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Is that something you've felt like you had to do in the past?  If so why?  Whose business is it where you ski?



No I haven't personally.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 12, 2014)

Good. It's hard to imagine that ever happening.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 4, 2014)

They're still going.....


----------



## Edd (Jun 4, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> They're still going.....



Mmmm...they make sense until they talk about discrimination. At that point it sounds like BS. What a waste of energy on both sides.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 5, 2014)

His argument that only 3 ski areas out of 700+ ban snowboards cuts both ways.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 5, 2014)

Edd said:


> Mmmm...they make sense until they talk about discrimination. At that point it sounds like BS. What a waste of energy on both sides.





VTKilarney said:


> His argument that only 3 ski areas out of 700+ ban snowboards cuts both ways.



By the end of the video I did not like him.  It just sounded like whining.


----------



## Nick (Jun 5, 2014)

I have a question. Why have'nt any resorts gone snowboard only?

I mean the obvious answer is that revenues would decline and it wouldn't be profitable. But you'd have to think if there area areas like Alta that decide that being skier-only is in their best interest, why haven't any resorts gone the other way and decided that boarder-only is in their best interest? 

Who knows. It might be a surprise hit.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jun 5, 2014)

Nick said:


> I have a question. Why have'nt any resorts gone snowboard only?
> 
> I mean the obvious answer is that revenues would decline and it wouldn't be profitable. But you'd have to think if there area areas like Alta that decide that being skier-only is in their best interest, why haven't any resorts gone the other way and decided that boarder-only is in their best interest?
> 
> Who knows. It might be a surprise hit.



I may be flamed but I'm guessing there just isn't enough interest. Some mountain cater more to snowboarders (Snow and Stratton come to mind). In general, I don't think snowboarders attracted the school vacation crowds and all the added stuff that comes with it. I'd like to see it though. I think it's good for the sport. Just don't take away my favorite mountain or else I might have to go back to knuckle dragging!


----------



## Tin (Jun 5, 2014)

Nick said:


> I have a question. Why have'nt any resorts gone snowboard only?
> 
> I mean the obvious answer is that revenues would decline and it wouldn't be profitable. But you'd have to think if there area areas like Alta that decide that being skier-only is in their best interest, why haven't any resorts gone the other way and decided that boarder-only is in their best interest?
> 
> Who knows. It might be a surprise hit.



Declining interest in snowboarding in the past few years? See less of them and more kids on skis in the park and around the mountain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 5, 2014)

Nick said:


> I have a question. Why have'nt any resorts gone snowboard only?
> 
> I mean the obvious answer is that revenues would decline and it wouldn't be profitable. But you'd have to think if there area areas like Alta that decide that being skier-only is in their best interest, why haven't any resorts gone the other way and decided that boarder-only is in their best interest?
> 
> Who knows. It might be a surprise hit.



As said, low demand apparently.  Also that demographic tends not to have much in the way of disposable income.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2014)

Alta only made this comment regarding the suit in their latest blog post:



> The lawsuit filed against us because we are a skier’s mountain is slowly grinding its way through the legal process and the lawyers’ offices.
> 
> Thank you for skiing with us last winter and have a great summer.



http://www.alta.com/altablog/?p=2341


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Alta only made this comment regarding the suit in their latest blog post:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.alta.com/altablog/?p=2341



That's about the amount of attention it deserves.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 21, 2014)

An interesting segment from KUER regarding the matter. 

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/skiers-snowboarders-and-fight-over-alta


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 22, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> An interesting segment from KUER regarding the matter.
> 
> http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/skiers-snowboarders-and-fight-over-alta



I didn't hear anything new.  What specifically did you find interesting about it? (Sincere question)


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 21, 2014)

Bump. Saw a guy at Oktoberfest today at Snowbird wearing a Wasatch Equality T-shirt. He was bragging to his friends how he likes to photo bomb people's videos as they are skiing and be a dick to piss them off. Sounds like just the kind of guy I am not going to miss this winter at Alta.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 21, 2014)

^To be fair, if there were snowboard-only mountains out there, this guy would exist in a skier version. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 21, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> As said,* low demand* apparently.  *Also that demographic tends not to have much in the way of disposable income*.



This, and that.

Those are your two answers.  You couldn't make the numbers work financially with a "Snowboarding only" mountain.   I'm not sure what the justification would be anyway, but it's a moot point given you cant make the $$ work.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 21, 2014)

Waterville Valley tried that in the mid 90's I believe. Only lasted one year.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This, and that.
> 
> Those are your two answers.  You couldn't make the numbers work financially with a "Snowboarding only" mountain.   I'm not sure what the justification would be anyway, but it's a moot point given you cant make the $$ work.



They don't like what those skiers with their nasty short-radius turns do to the groomers?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I didn't hear anything new.  What specifically did you find interesting about it? (Sincere question)



The discussion really meandered.  There was nothing really new per se.  Understandably, there was no representative from Alta, so it was not a great conversation...the commentators were basing their observations on speculation.  Those that called or wrote in were split as to opinion...some that wanted it to change, others that said they like it as it is, some that didn't care.  I think you left the conversation with the idea that Alta does it because their customers demand it.  Folks who were pro-snowboard did not really make a convincing case other than "it's not fair" and "it's based on dated ideas".


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Waterville Valley tried that in the mid 90's I believe. Only lasted one year.



Yeah, it was Snow's Mountain where they did it which, admittedly, is pretty tiny compared to your average ski area.  

I think that economically snowboarding needs skiing more than vice versa.  Snowboarding has always been a counterculture thing and has always been a smaller segment of the market.  Additionally, skiers tend to be older and have more disposable income and they, in essence, finance ski area development and snowboarding.  Admittedly for a while skiing needed snowboarding because younger folks were not interested in skiing, and that market went into snowboarding.  Now with twin tips and fatter skis, folks are more interested in skiing.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2014)

The verdict is in:  http://fox13now.com/2014/09/23/judge-tosses-lawsuit-over-altas-snowboarding-ban/


----------



## Edd (Sep 23, 2014)

Good. I agree with the judge that the courts were the wrong place to do this.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 23, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The discussion really meandered.  There was nothing really new per se.  Understandably, there was no representative from Alta, so it was not a great conversation...the commentators were basing their observations on speculation.  Those that called or wrote in were split as to opinion...some that wanted it to change, others that said they like it as it is, some that didn't care.  I think you left the conversation with the idea that Alta does it because their customers demand it.  Folks who were pro-snowboard did not really make a convincing case other than "it's not fair" and "it's based on dated ideas".



Yes, I listened to it and your synopsis is pretty accurate.  That wasn't my question though.   It seemed like a dull rehash of the same old non-issue. Your synopisis seems to confirm that.  Yet you called it "interesting", I'm curious what you found interesting about it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Yes, I listened to it and your synopsis is pretty accurate.  That wasn't my question though.   It seemed like a dull rehash of the same old non-issue. Your synopisis seems to confirm that.  Yet you called it "interesting", I'm curious what you found interesting about it.



Interesting I supposed because it is more than a soundbite and you get to really think about the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion.  For me it was the sense that the suit really does not have any legitimate basis.  

And the SL Trib just released an article:  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58447411-78/alta-snowboarders-ban-resort.html.csp


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 24, 2014)

> It looks a little goofy if you’re a ski resort allowing mono skiers, telemarkers, teleboarders — which are on one ski as well



Apparently telemark skiing is done on one ski

And how many people actually mono or teleboard? I've never seen a teleboarder, and I've only seen 2 mono boarders since I moved out here.


----------



## jimk (Sep 24, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Apparently telemark skiing is done on one ski
> 
> And how many people actually mono or teleboard? I've never seen a teleboarder, and I've only seen 2 mono boarders since I moved out here.


Did someone say teleboarder?  This guy's a friend of mine and to be honest he doesn't break out the teleboard very often.



Good on regular telemark skis too.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 24, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Apparently telemark skiing is done on one ski
> 
> And how many people actually mono or teleboard? I've never seen a teleboarder, and I've only seen 2 mono boarders since I moved out here.


The teleboard was invented a few towns over from me. Well the guy who invented it lives there (Eric Fey and his brother Martin) http://www.telemarkdown.com/


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 24, 2014)

I read the decision last night.  Pretty thorough.  They lost on every point.  Any appeal will be very difficult to make.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 24, 2014)

*Judge rejects snowboarders lawsuit againt Alta*

Apparently, skiing Alta is not a constitutional right.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...suit-demanding-access-to-Alta-Ski-Resort.html


----------



## Breakout12 (Sep 24, 2014)

No Kidding!  Imagine that. :roll:


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 24, 2014)

I like to make the analogy to going to a fine restaurant for your anniversary or something. If you're dressed up appropriately, you can come in. If you show up with shorts, t-shirt, and sandals and are denied, is that discrimination? 

The same snowboarder who is denied access can come back with a pair of skis and ride the lifts, so this is not discrimination against a person. 

Where's the "beating a dead horse" emoticon when you need it?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 24, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I like to make the analogy to going to a fine restaurant for your anniversary or something. If you're dressed up appropriately, you can come in. If you show up with shorts, t-shirt, and sandals and are denied, is that discrimination?
> 
> The same snowboarder who is denied access can come back with a pair of skis and ride the lifts, so this is not discrimination against a person.
> 
> Where's the "beating a dead horse" emoticon when you need it?



Right here:


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

dis·crim·i·na·tion
disˌkriməˈnāSHən 
noun
1. the unjust or *prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things*, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms:	prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
antonyms:	impartiality
2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

And for the record... I could care less about the whole issue anymore...
Not worth it... People will feel the way they feel..  Can't change it...

Just have to wait for that generation to die off...


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 25, 2014)

There is a difference between the websters definition of discrimination, and the legal definition of discrimination.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> There is a difference between the websters definition of discrimination, and the legal definition of discrimination.



Im not a lawyer... I'll have to trust ya...  Unless you're a lawyer...


----------



## mbedle (Sep 25, 2014)

Since this only applies to two resorts in the US, I got to agree with Funky. However, if this came to the east coast and half of the resorts starting doing this, I would have a different opinion.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

There's a 3rd... but who's counting...


----------



## mbedle (Sep 25, 2014)

Yeah, I forgot that one in Vermont.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

Thought you forgot the other one in Utah...


----------



## Edd (Sep 25, 2014)

This debate could go on for eternity, but the dress code analogy mentioned earlier is apt. If you want to ride the mountain, wear the proper boards. Simple as that. 

Does it make any sense?  Not to me; I think the ban is stupid. Not really a big deal, though, and a huge waste of court time.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 25, 2014)

MRG doesn't allow snowboarding?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

Funky_Catskills said:


> dis·crim·i·na·tion
> disˌkriməˈnāSHən
> noun
> 1. the unjust or *prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things*, *especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
> ...



The last part of that definition is what is critical (what I underlined).  Folks are welcome to Alta; they just can't use a snowboard.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> MRG doesn't allow snowboarding?



Currently MRG, Deer Valley, and Alta are the only areas in the U.S. that are skier only.  If you ask them why they will say that their customers prefer that and have told management that is what they want.  These are a minority of the industry.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 25, 2014)

lol I was being _very_ sarcastic

I don't see that changing anytime soon either. The only reason Taos changed their policy is because they weren't generating a lot of money due to the fact there isn't much skiing in NM. At least that's what the rep at the ski expo told me last year.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The last part of that definition is what is critical (what I underlined).  Folks are welcome to Alta; they just can't use a snowboard.



"especially" throws it off though...  vague...


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 25, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> lol I was being _very_ sarcastic



He swallowed that hook....  Line and sinker...  

Good one...


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> lol I was being _very_ sarcastic
> 
> I don't see that changing anytime soon either. The only reason Taos changed their policy is because they weren't generating a lot of money due to the fact there isn't much skiing in NM. At least that's what the rep at the ski expo told me last year.



You had me worried.  

As to Taos, that is what Wasatch Equality has said as well.  But I think that it also has helped them immensely that the last few seasons they've had a lot more snow than normal.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 25, 2014)

The issue that turns off snowboarders, notably at Alta, is that ultimately its on public land. Yes they lease it, I realize that complicates things. 

The restaurant comparison falls apart here as those are all privately owned. When Alta is getting a cherry deal on public land use, its gets a to be more bullshit when they are excluding the public from their own land technically. 

Like I said the lease complicates things, but I do think thats why you hear much more bitching about Alta, as opposed to MRG or Deer Valley which to my understanding are on private land.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 25, 2014)

What happens when someone snowboards down Alta? Can't be too hard since you can get to the top of Sugarloaf from the backside of Snowbird. Does ski patrol chase you down? Or you just can't ride the lift back up?

I've actually heard snowboarders have boarded the chairlift at Alta with a combination of a splitboard and a (presumably) inattentive liftie.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> The issue that turns off snowboarders, notably at Alta, is that ultimately its on public land. Yes they lease it, I realize that complicates things.
> 
> The restaurant comparison falls apart here as those are all privately owned. When Alta is getting a cherry deal on public land use, its gets a to be more bullshit when they are excluding the public from their own land technically.
> 
> Like I said the lease complicates things, but I do think thats why you hear much more bitching about Alta, as opposed to MRG or Deer Valley which to my understanding are on private land.



There are MANY private vendors that operate stores and restaurants on public land.  Take a drive up to Grand Teton NP, AR.  All of the lodges, restaurants, and stores are operated by the *Grand Teton Lodging Company.*  They're private.  

Additionally, there have been many cases on discrimination by vendors leasing from the government.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> What happens when someone snowboards down Alta? Can't be too hard since you can get to the top of Sugarloaf from the backside of Snowbird. Does ski patrol chase you down? Or you just can't ride the lift back up?
> 
> I've actually heard snowboarders have boarded the chairlift at Alta with a combination of a splitboard and a (presumably) inattentive liftie.



They won't be let on the lift.  That's all.  The boundary between Alta and Snowbird near Baldy Express/East Baldy Traverse has a manned checkpoint with an RFID gate.  However, the other entries on the ridge are not manned.  See the red arrows below along Baldy and the ridge below it on far right:


----------



## Handbanana (Sep 25, 2014)

Wouldn't Alta be somewhat forced to allow snowboarding if that whole "one wasatch" thing went forward, since its kind of in the middle? I'm not saying that one wasatch is likely or anything, but the area seems to be a vital link in that proposal. 

Personally, I couldn't care less if they allowed snowboarding or not, as I don't think I'd want to ride somewhere I wasn't welcome.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

Handbanana said:


> Wouldn't Alta be somewhat forced to allow snowboarding if that whole "one wasatch" thing went forward, since its kind of in the middle? I'm not saying that one wasatch is likely or anything, but the area seems to be a vital link in that proposal.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't care less if they allowed snowboarding or not, as I don't think I'd want to ride somewhere I wasn't welcome.



Alta management I think would quietly agree with you; but One Wasatch is not a sure bet.  It probably won't change Deer Valley.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 25, 2014)

As a snowboarder I can confidently say 'who cares'.  This is a mega non-issue.  Private businesses will always do what they think is right for their bottom line.  Alta holds this policy because they don't have much else unique to offer in a highly competitive market. If you don't like the policy then spend your money somewhere else, preferably at their biggest competitor.  It would be far more satisfying to see them go out of business or have to back-peddle on their policy, than to have the legal system force them to change (talk about creating a martyr).


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Alta holds this policy because they don't have much else unique to offer in a highly competitive market.



IIRC you ski and ride, right?

I ask because you owe it to yourself to visit Alta (assuming you ski).  It is an amazing place.  Judging by your comment it doesn't sound like you've skied there before.  It is amazing.  On a powder day, and there are many, it is unreal.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 25, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> IIRC you ski and ride, right?
> 
> I ask because you owe it to yourself to visit Alta (assuming you ski).  It is an amazing place.  Judging by your comment it doesn't sound like you've skied there before.  It is amazing.  On a powder day, and there are many, it is unreal.



I do ski and ride.  I've skied and ridden Snowbird several times .  I will not be going to Alta. They've made their business decisions, that's their right.  But it's a decision that will keep my dollars away.  Snowbird, Brighton, etc have always treated me great.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I do ski and ride.  I've skied and ridden Snowbird several times .  I will not be going to Alta. They've made their business decisions, that's their right.  But it's a decision that will keep my dollars away.  Snowbird, Brighton, etc have always treated me great.



So I take it that you won't visit Deer Valley or MRG?


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 25, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> So I take it that you won't visit Deer Valley or MRG?



Are you just tying to boost post count now?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Are you just tying to boost post count now?



Nope.  Sincere question.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2014)

I totally agree with Cannonball about Alta and I have skied there multiple times. It is good but nothing special. I have skied it in thigh deep powder too.  I prefer a Snowbird over it and Jackson Hole blows it away. So only allowing skiers when it has nothing really special other that is lame.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 26, 2014)

Anyone calling the skiing available in LCC nothing special is lame.


----------



## marcski (Sep 26, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Anyone calling the skiing available in LCC nothing special is lame.



I don't think they are lame, I just know that they don't know how to ski Alta and where to find the goods.  You need to know how (and where to) ski Alta.  There are as many or more long steep shots at Alta as there are at most resorts and Alta gets more of the best snow than almost any other mountain. 

With that said, if you don't enjoy it, stay away please.


----------



## machski (Sep 26, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Anyone calling the skiing available in LCC nothing special is lame.



Puckit did say he prefers Snowbird over Alta and that is still LCC.  Alta requires work to find the goods, Snowbird you just have to have a set of eyes and balls from the tram!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 26, 2014)

machski said:


> Puckit did say he prefers Snowbird over Alta and that is still LCC.  Alta requires work to find the goods, Snowbird you just have to have a set of eyes and balls from the tram!



+1


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## snoseek (Sep 26, 2014)

I prefer Snowbird, steeper more consistent pitches, longer runs, a tram and better services. It's mostly because I burnt myself out on alta for life. They are both fantastic skiing and compliment each other really well and yeah the pow at alta is a little bit better and skis off a little bit slower (very little).

I do wish they would let boarders in, think its dumb and elitist but I'll still ski there.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 26, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Anyone calling the skiing available in LCC nothing special is lame.




Why am I lame for not loving it?  It is my opinion.  And I have been all over Alta. Grizzly, Catherine's, Superior, etc.  There are some very good shots.  I just do not hold it in the reverance that most people do.  Do not get me wrong, I like it but not to the level of most.  I think JHMR blows it away.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 26, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Nope. Sincere question.




Really?  So you're asking me if I'm consistent in my opinions & stance on snowboarding bans, or if I'm somehow hypocritical with different approaches to different Mtns?  Sounds like trolling to me, but I'll bite.....  Yes, you assume correctly I won't ski Deer Valley or MRG.  They've made their business decisions, that's their right. But it's a decision that will keep my dollars away.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 26, 2014)

You seem to be getting overly offended for no real reason CB.

The snow will fall again dude.....don't worry


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 26, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> You seem to be getting overly offended for no real reason CB.
> 
> The snow will fall again dude.....don't worry



Not really offended, but it's pretty obvious that TB (Trollboss?) is playing a game in this thread.  I'm curious why so I'm playing along.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 26, 2014)

I bet Cannonball doesn't go to Chik-Fil-A either because he believes they should be open on Sunday 

Just challenge each other to a ski/ride off!!


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 26, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I bet Cannonball doesn't go to Chik-Fil-A either because he believes they should be open on Sunday



Everyone deserves a day off from salmonella


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 26, 2014)

Thanks to the advent of park skiing, these snowboarding bans have failed as a proxy for eliminating undesirables.  These resorts need to start banning oversized clothing, twin tips and anyone who sticks out their tongue and apes for attention when excited, or should I say "stoked"!!! :flame:


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 26, 2014)

One of the things I can't stand about the LCC is the type 1 people there...
Seems like a meca for that kind of personality to me...   I don't exist well with those types since I basically vacation to avoid that..

Why I prefer Jackson...  Or Colorado... Or Montana... Or BC....


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Sep 26, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Not really offended, but it's pretty obvious that TB (Trollboss?) is playing a game in this thread.  I'm curious why so I'm playing along.



Totally... Pushing you into the 1995 argument...  
Don't take the bait...  hahaha...  

Cosby show is on... fax later.....


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 26, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Not really offended, but it's pretty obvious that TB (Trollboss?) is playing a game in this thread.  I'm curious why so I'm playing along.



Wow not even close. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 24, 2014)

They're baaaacccccckkkkkk!

http://fox13now.com/2014/11/24/alta-snowboard-ban-appealed/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1868678-155/snowboarders-to-appeal-ban-from-altas

Appealed to 10th Circuit (really?)


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 24, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> They're baaaacccccckkkkkk!
> 
> http://fox13now.com/2014/11/24/alta-snowboard-ban-appealed/
> 
> ...



Who the hell is fronting this cost? That's what I'm curious about.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 24, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Who the hell is fronting this cost? That's what I'm curious about.



http://www.skullcandy.com

That's who.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 24, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> http://www.skullcandy.com
> 
> That's who.
> 
> ...



Really?  Why, for fame?


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 25, 2014)

gmcunni said:


> Really?  Why, for fame?



PR. Also because of a vendetta.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Nov 25, 2014)

> To cultivate awareness and take legal action on the issue, the Wasatch Equality group was formed by Leines, Varga, Drew Hicken, Forrest Gladding, Skullcandy mogul Rick Alden, and a list of other core snowboarders that stretches from pioneers of the sport to attorneys that just love to shred.



http://snowboarding.transworld.net/news/wasatch-equality-continues-fight-end-altas-ban-snowboarding/


----------



## dlague (Jun 30, 2015)

*Alta Defends Snowboarding Ban*

This day and age this seems out of place.  Many older snowboarders are more responsible than many skiers.  Yet snowboarding still gets a bad wrap.  What sat you?

http://www.powder.com/stories/first...rding-ban-in-court-again/#Ukw1SUypQTiEovsa.97


----------



## JimG. (Jun 30, 2015)

The ban has gotten old and needs to go; in today's climate, it's just another form of discrimination.

I'm a skier and have never snowboarded, but I have many friends I slide with who choose a snowboard as their choice of carving tool. I'm sick of the snowboard hate. Time to put an end to it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 30, 2015)

dlague said:


> This day and age this seems out of place.  Many older snowboarders are more responsible than many skiers.  Yet snowboarding still gets a bad wrap.  What sat you?
> 
> http://www.powder.com/stories/first...rding-ban-in-court-again/#Ukw1SUypQTiEovsa.97



I was going to bump this thread because it looks like briefing is close to done on the Tenth Circuit appeal.  I doubt that the decision will be reversed and that the pro-snowboarding appellants will file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court only to get denied.  

Personally, to each his own.  I skied a lot at Snowbird and Alta last season (the wide majority of the season).  I actually skied both equally and love both for different reasons.  I'm OK with Alta's decision to be for skiing only.  Of course if I snowboarded I might have a different opinion.  I don't hear this kind of anger directed at Deer Valley and not so much anymore at MRG.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 1, 2015)

I think the reason you don't hear to much about MRG is they don't have the best product and they are not located on public land. As far as deer valley, they are also on private land. I think the lawsuit against Alta is primarily based on the fact they operate on federal land.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jul 1, 2015)

mbedle said:


> MRG is they don't have the best product



Can you clarify?


----------



## mbedle (Jul 1, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> Can you clarify?



Strictly from a marketing point of view, they have a very limited snowmaking system and an outdated single chair lift to their summit. Not exactly the kind of resort you are going to get snowboarders behind you, in your fight to be able to ride. Don't get me wrong, MRG offers something unique that a lot of skiers enjoy - its just not what the majority of the skier base want.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 1, 2015)

mbedle said:


> I think the reason you don't hear to much about MRG is they don't have the best product and they are not located on public land. As far as deer valley, they are also on private land. I think the lawsuit against Alta is primarily based on the fact they operate on federal land.



I think the federal lease is one hook for the litigation.  But for years Burton and others constantly hounded MRG.  Lately it has not been an issue.  And I find it interesting that they don't go after Deer Valley. Although they're probably smart enough to know that Deer Valley has more $$$ behind it.  

And I would not call the (recently) refurbished Single "outdated".


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jul 1, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> And I would not call the (recently) refurbished Single "outdated".



+1  

The Single chair was refurbished at high cost & effort to retain its iconic value.  Limited snow-making also intentional as to retain natural conditions as much as possible.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jul 1, 2015)

It's fair to say that MRG is not a mass market product.  


.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 1, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> +1
> 
> Limited snow-making also intentional as to retain natural conditions as much as possible.


Mad River Glen lacks access to water, that's why their snow making is as limited as it is.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 1, 2015)

VTKilarney said:


> It's fair to say that MRG is not a mass market product.
> 
> 
> .


Mad River Glen has limited parking & doesn't own any land to expand parking. There's no room for the masses. As it is people park on the side of the road up & down from the parking area on busy days often necessitating quite a hike to the ski area.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

You make a valid point.  As much as I am 100% against snowboarding bans anywhere, MRG is "at capacity" as much as any ski area can be on weekends.  No parking, long lift lines, packed lodge.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 1, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You make a valid point.  As much as I am 100% against snowboarding bans anywhere, MRG is "at capacity" as much as any ski area can be on weekends.  No parking, long lift lines, packed lodge.



What happened to first come, first served?

The solution to the capacity problem is to ban a segment of the sliding population?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2015)

I'd be fine with capping tickets at MRG even if it remained skiers only.

That's a good idea.

Like I said, 100% against snowboarding bans anywhere


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 1, 2015)

Deer Valley, another mountain that bans snowboarding, has had a cap on lift ticket sales for years. How often they reach that cap I've no idea.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 1, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Deer Valley, another mountain that bans snowboarding, has had a cap on lift ticket sales for years. How often they reach that cap I've no idea.



A handful of times each season on predictable days--Christmas Week, MLK, President's Week, and Sundance.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jul 2, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Mad River Glen lacks access to water, that's why their snow making is as limited as it is.



MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river").  Its a choice.  Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking.  It's just not a priority.



steamboat1 said:


> Mad River Glen has limited parking & doesn't own any land to expand parking. There's no room for the masses. As it is people park on the side of the road up & down from the parking area on busy days often necessitating quite a hike to the ski area.


  Sugarbush recently purchased the property of the old Warren House to expand their parking.  In theory, MRG could do the same if adjacent properties came on the market.  Again its all about choices.  Obviously MRG shareholders are not concerned about the extra revenue from Snowboarders which could possibly help fund better snowmaking and or parking facilities.  I agree with VTK in saying their's is not a mass-market product.  MRG knows theirs is a devoted, niche-market, and therefore caters to it alone.


----------



## cdskier (Jul 2, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river").  Its a choice.  Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking.  It's just not a priority.



I thought just within the past year or 2 I was watching a presentation from the MRG board on the local MRV tv channel where they did identify water capacity as a major roadblock to snowmaking expansion in that they said they really didn't have a place to build an adequate retention pond. You can't just pull water directly from the Mad River at a rate high enough to sustain significantly expanded snowmaking.

And as I was writing this I looked at MRG's website and found the snowmaking expansion report that I was thinking of: http://www.madriverglen.coop/images/resources/Snowmaking_Future_at_MRG.pdf

On the 2nd to the last slide one of the major items that would be needed in order for MRG to decide to expand snowmaking is "Significant donation of land or water rights to provide adequate Phase II + water supply".


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 3, 2015)

ThinkSnow said:


> MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river").  Its a choice.  Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking.





cdskier said:


> ....
> 
> On the 2nd to the last slide one of the major items that would be needed in order for MRG to decide to expand snowmaking is "Significant *donation *of land or water rights to provide adequate Phase II + water supply".



For 14-15' lift tickets comparing Sugarbush and MRG, weekend window tickets...

MRG- $75
Sugarbush- $84

Now MRG doesnt have the expense of snowmaking, or grooming, or a infrastructure, or new lifts.  Yet thy require people to donate land and water rights to them.  What are they doing with all the $ they take in and don't spend to improve the skiing experience?


----------



## mbedle (Jul 3, 2015)

You need to keep in mind that the number of skier visits at MRG is considerably less than a place like Sugarbush. I would second to guess that MRG pulls in about 75K ski visits per year, compared to close to 500K at SB. I also got to believe that a large majority of MRG ski visits are tied to season passes.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> For 14-15' lift tickets comparing Sugarbush and MRG, weekend window tickets...
> 
> MRG- $75
> Sugarbush- $84
> ...


Pretty sure the weekend window rate at Sugarbush was $92 last year. Despite rumors to the contrary MRG does groom. Both the single chair & Sunnyside double chair are fairly new lifts.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jul 4, 2015)

MRG lacks the capacity to store the water needed for a larger snowmaking system. They have one very small holding tank and that is it. Like Steamboat1 said, it's not the water that is the issue. The problem is there is nowhere to put it. So basically they would need to find land to put the tanks on or constantly truck water up to fill the small pond that they do have. Not very efficient from a cost or snowmaking perspective.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 4, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Pretty sure the weekend window rate at Sugarbush was $92 last year. Despite rumors to the contrary MRG does groom. Both the single chair & Sunnyside double chair are fairly new lifts.



+1. The costs of just keeping the place going are significant. They also are trying to keep it debt free in order to sustain it.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 4, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> They also are trying to keep it debt free in order to sustain it.


Wish someone in Washington would do that, not to even mention the state & city level..


----------



## darent (Jul 5, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> They won't be let on the lift.  That's all.  The boundary between Alta and Snowbird near Baldy Express/East Baldy Traverse has a manned checkpoint with an RFID gate.  However, the other entries on the ridge are not manned.  See the red arrows below along Baldy and the ridge below it on far right:


not really true all the time, last time I skied alta two snowboarders came over the ridge, skied down to the lift and the lifties let them on and they went back over the ridge to snowbird. the forbidden fruit!!


----------



## cdskier (Jul 5, 2015)

mbedle said:


> You need to keep in mind that the number of skier visits at MRG is considerably less than a place like Sugarbush. I would second to guess that MRG pulls in about 75K ski visits per year, compared to close to 500K at SB. I also got to believe that a large majority of MRG ski visits are tied to season passes.



I'm also sure that SB generates a significant amount of revenue from items other than lift tickets (i.e. real estate rentals at Claybrook, the SB Inn, F&B, etc).


----------



## Smellytele (Jul 6, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> MRG lacks the capacity to store the water needed for a larger snowmaking system. They have one very small holding tank and that is it. Like Steamboat1 said, it's not the water that is the issue. The problem is there is nowhere to put it. So basically they would need to find land to put the tanks on or constantly truck water up to fill the small pond that they do have. Not very efficient from a cost or snowmaking perspective.


Put in a cistern under the parking lot across the street.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 5, 2015)

Bump

http://fox13now.com/2015/10/05/the-...l-hear-arguments-over-altas-snowboarding-ban/

This is still going.  Ugh.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 5, 2015)

what a waste of my tax dollars...


----------



## tumbler (Oct 5, 2015)

Since this is a Federal case would it apply to Deer Valley and MRG?  STOOPID


----------



## mbedle (Oct 5, 2015)

As a snowboarder, I can honestly say that this is stupid and a waste of time and money. Who in their right mind, even if they win, would want to board at a place that doesn't want you there. I can't even imagine the cat-calls you would get from everyone else on the mountain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 5, 2015)

I haven't heard that to be the case in Taos.


----------



## Cornhead (Oct 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I haven't heard that to be the case in Taos.



It's not, the regulars are alot more upset about the new Kachina lift  and the loss of long lasting hike to terrain to side slipping Texas skiers than they are the inclusion of boarders. I, as an infrequent visitor, did appreciate the easy access however.

I've skied there once before the ban was lifted, twice since, I noticed no difference at all. The Kachina lift wasn't there the first two visits. I didn't hike it, but I did ask someone popping out how long it took to do so. He told me 45 min, I asked him if it was worth it, he just said, "That was some f'n awesome powder!".


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 5, 2015)

I'm sure that was better as an earn your turn powder bowl, but it sure does look sweet with all the bumps too.


----------



## Cornhead (Oct 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm sure that was better as an earn your turn powder bowl, but it sure does look sweet with all the bumps too.



Yep, there were a shitload, zero ice too, ah memories. It's funny, my first day at Abasin last year I thought to myself, "It's so nice skiing bumps out West, no ice in the troughs." Then it dawned on me, there were no icy troughs back home last year. Very few thaw freeze cycles. I hope this year is the same...with more snow.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I haven't heard that to be the case in Taos.



DHS- not sure your reply was to mine. Was Taos forced to allow snowboarders? If not, that is a big difference. Taos chose to allow snowboarders and with open arms. Alta, is being forced to allow them. Don't expect them to roll out the red carpet for them. I see no racks, no equipment sales, no rentals, no parks, and a couple of lift line attendants having some fun at the expense of a inexperienced boarder. Don't expect the ski patrol to be to kind to them. Slightest infraction will result in a ticket being pulled.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 5, 2015)

They were not forced no.  But, there was definitely a long history of similar types like you have at MRG and Alta who were decidedly anti-snowboarding.  There was concern of animosity when the ban was lifted.  It was pretty big news. That didn't materialize from what I've read and Cornhead confirms.

Even if by force, I'm not so certain people wouldn't warm up very quickly to snowboarders at Alta.  Unless the people there really are that big of jerks.  

I'm in agreement that the court case is a joke.  However, I also feel snowboarding bans are a joke.


----------



## marcski (Oct 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> However, I also feel snowboarding bans are a joke.



Really?  We never heard you say that before. [emoji1]


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 5, 2015)

mbedle said:


> DHS- not sure your reply was to mine. Was Taos forced to allow snowboarders? If not, that is a big difference. Taos chose to allow snowboarders and with open arms. Alta, is being forced to allow them. Don't expect them to roll out the red carpet for them. I see no racks, no equipment sales, no rentals, no parks, and a couple of lift line attendants having some fun at the expense of a inexperienced boarder. Don't expect the ski patrol to be to kind to them. Slightest infraction will result in a ticket being pulled.



In all fairness, and from skiing regularly at Alta, I can say that the management and staff are awesome and really don't care from what I see.  It's their customers and ownership that want to keep it as it is.  Some customers are very vocal about it, others not.  Is it different?  Yes, I think so.  I am a skier and I enjoy it.  The snow surfaces are different, but I think that is in large part due to less traffic.  Is the vibe different?  Yes.  It is old school with a lot of mountain gear heads and the "earn your turn" crowd that hikes for the goods off the lift accessed terrain.  

Snowbird is right next door and while very similar it is quite different.  IMHO the terrain variety at Snowbird is better but that is thanks to a different lift design (all terrain is accessible with little if any real hiking) because of the Tram.  Alta didn't have the money or technology in 1938 to have this.  Also, Snowbird is huge.  Add that the crowd is younger and more diverse and the vibe is different.  However, the gaper factor is much higher.


----------



## mbedle (Oct 6, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> In all fairness, and from skiing regularly at Alta, I can say that the management and staff are awesome and really don't care from what I see.  It's their customers and ownership that want to keep it as it is.  Some customers are very vocal about it, others not.  Is it different?  Yes, I think so.  I am a skier and I enjoy it.  The snow surfaces are different, but I think that is in large part due to less traffic.  Is the vibe different?  Yes.  It is old school with a lot of mountain gear heads and the "earn your turn" crowd that hikes for the goods off the lift accessed terrain.
> 
> Snowbird is right next door and while very similar it is quite different.  IMHO the terrain variety at Snowbird is better but that is thanks to a different lift design (all terrain is accessible with little if any real hiking) because of the Tram.  Alta didn't have the money or technology in 1938 to have this.  Also, Snowbird is huge.  Add that the crowd is younger and more diverse and the vibe is different.  However, the gaper factor is much higher.



That makes sense and I wasn't thinking that employees may not have the same feelings that the company that owns Alta does. None the less, a company that is forced to allow snowboarding is not necessarily going to open the gates with love for snowboarders. If it does happen, its also not really going to change the vibe at Alta. I got to believe for at least a couple of years, most snowboarders will avoid the place. Even if the lose in court, pretty sure they are not going to require them to advertise that they now welcome snowboarders.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 6, 2015)

mbedle said:


> That makes sense and I wasn't thinking that employees may not have the same feelings that the company that owns Alta does. None the less, a company that is forced to allow snowboarding is not necessarily going to open the gates with love for snowboarders. If it does happen, its also not really going to change the vibe at Alta. I got to believe for at least a couple of years, most snowboarders will avoid the place. Even if the lose in court, pretty sure they are not going to require them to advertise that they now welcome snowboarders.



Highly doubtful that Alta is going to lose


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 7, 2015)

Don't need a rack..
Don't need a park..
Don't need services..
Don't need lifties to treat me well...

Just need badass terrain..


----------



## the_awesome (Oct 7, 2015)

What annoys me about places like MRG is the overly negative attitude towards snowboarding in general. What they don't understand is that their stereotypical vision of a snowboarder is not going to frequent MRG. They will stick to the lift accessed terrain parks & HSQ serviced groomers that are now run rampant with "freeskiers".....


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 7, 2015)

They may show up and ride MRG... Once...


----------



## the_awesome (Oct 7, 2015)

The reasons (see excuses) I have heard have been anywhere from "Oh, snowboarders damage the single chair when unloading". All the way to "The owners wife was harassed by a group of you skiboarding hooligans in the produce section of a grocery store and swore to ban it".

Meanwhile, I'm on a lift at Sugerbush with a family whose wife is telling me it's because it's "too difficult" for snowboarders. As she proceeds to pizza down a green, her son dressed in an outfit a 5x too large for him (made by a snowboard company none the less) does this neat trick of sitting on his skis, cuts her off in the process knocking her over causing a complete train wreck...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 7, 2015)

the_awesome said:


> The reasons (see excuses) I have heard have been anywhere from "Oh, snowboarders damage the single chair when unloading". All the way to "The owners wife was harassed by a group of you skiboarding hooligans in the produce section of a grocery store and swore to ban it".



You're closer than you realize.  

The first problem was that snowboarders had a hard time getting off the Single because of the ramp.  This would result in stopping the lift to let them off or the chair derailing because the boarder had to push off.  

Betsy Pratt then decided to restrict boarders from the Single because of this issue.  So they could only ride the doubles at the mountain.  This pissed off a lot of snowboarders.  One night a group of boarders allegedly accosted and harassed Betsy while she was grocery shopping.  So she banned them all completely.  

It has stuck for other reasons--mainly the preference of the majority of the shareholders.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 7, 2015)

like clockwork


----------



## SnowRock (Oct 7, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> It has stuck for other reasons--mainly the preference of the majority of the shareholders.


And this is always my problem with the bans. I probably said the same thing in this very thread but there is nothing wrong with the bans... businesses can choose to run as they wish within the boundary of law. 

I'd probably visit MRG at least a few times a season based on the terrain but they don't want  my money and that's fine. I will continue to give it to Stowe and Bush and I will likely enjoy Snowbird with my MC this year (so I guess I am giving Alta some money). But just own the decision for what it is...  Don't start with the ruin the moguls, scrape the snow, and other dopey excuses (the sound) when so many are rocking rocking 100+ under foot. 

The lawsuit is silly IMO and very surprised that it is being heard.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Heard they won't even serve a latte to boarders at Deer Valley.


----------



## the_awesome (Oct 8, 2015)

SnowRock said:


> But just own the decision for what it is...  Don't start with the ruin the moguls, scrape the snow, and other dopey excuses (the sound) when so many are rocking rocking 100+ under foot.



x2


----------



## SnowRock (Oct 8, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Heard they won't even serve a latte to boarders at Deer Valley.



I prefer pour over anyway.


----------



## dlague (Oct 13, 2015)

Wow - that all I have!


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 14, 2015)

SnowRock said:


> And this is always my problem with the bans. I probably said the same thing in this very thread but there is nothing wrong with the bans... businesses can choose to run as they wish within the boundary of law.
> 
> I'd probably visit MRG at least a few times a season based on the terrain but they don't want  my money and that's fine. I will continue to give it to Stowe and Bush and I will likely enjoy Snowbird with my MC this year (so I guess I am giving Alta some money). But just own the decision for what it is...  Don't start with the ruin the moguls, scrape the snow, and other dopey excuses (the sound) when so many are rocking rocking 100+ under foot.
> 
> The lawsuit is silly IMO and very surprised that it is being heard.



Moguls in the woods suck...
I abandon woods runs when they bump up..


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 14, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Heard they won't even serve a latte to boarders at Deer Valley.



heheheheheh


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2015)

dlague said:


> Wow - that all I have!



Welcome to 2014.....


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 27, 2015)

Bump.  First, I was just reading about my snowcat skiing trip and saw this on the site:



> Snowcat Skiing/Snowboard Statement
> We are pleased to offer snowboarding as an option for Grizzly Gulch snowcat skiing. Otherwise, please remember that snowboarding is not allowed within the Alta Ski Area.



Interesting.  

http://www.alta.com/the-mountain/backcountry-adventures#alta-snow-skiing

And they had oral argument in the case.  TGR's update on it:  http://www.tetongravity.com/story/snowboard/will-alta-ever-share-with-snowboarders

KSL's take on it:  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37396027&ni...tah-ski-resort-in-appeals-court&s_cid=queue-4

I'd urge you to take the little poll at the end.  The results will surprise you.


----------



## wtcobb (Dec 28, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I'd urge you to take the little poll at the end.  The results will surprise you.



I'm surprised there are skiers in Niger!


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 28, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I'd urge you to take the little poll at the end.  The results will surprise you.



Results (as of now): "Should be allowed at Alta"=23%, "Should not be allowed at Alta"=75%.   So 75% of respondents think Alta shouldn't allow snowboarders, and they don't.  That seems to add up to me.  What do you find surprising about that?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 28, 2015)

wtcobb said:


> I'm surprised there are skiers in Niger!



:lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 28, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Results (as of now): "Should be allowed at Alta"=23%, "Should not be allowed at Alta"=75%.   So 75% of respondents think Alta shouldn't allow snowboarders, and they don't.  That seems to add up to me.  What do you find surprising about that?



Granted it's not scientific, but considering the noise it appears that most don't want the policy to change.  That is a surprise.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 28, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Granted it's not scientific, but considering the noise it appears that most don't want the policy to change.  That is a surprise.



If most wanted the policy to change, it would.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 28, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> If most wanted the policy to change, it would.



Yes.  Here it is a vocal minority.


----------



## cdskier (Dec 28, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Granted it's not scientific, but considering the noise it appears that most don't want the policy to change.  That is a surprise.



I wasn't surprised by the results. Like you said, it is simply a vocal minority making all the noise. They need to stop wasting the court's time with this. The court has more important things to deal with than who can ski/snowboard where.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 19, 2016)

No surprise

Affirmed

http://fox13now.com/2016/04/19/appeals-court-rejects-lawsuit-over-alta-snowboarding-ban/


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 20, 2016)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160419


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 20, 2016)

I started reading this article but got distracted by a link to a list of 10 celebrities who are said to smell awful.  None of them really surprised me.  How long before these lunatics file a new suit claiming snowboarders are a protected class?


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 20, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> I started reading this article but got distracted by a link to a list of 10 celebrities who are said to smell awful.  None of them really surprised me.  How long before these lunatics file a new suit claiming snowboarders are a protected class?



That was one of their arguments.


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 20, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> That was one of their arguments.



Nice.  I didn't think you needed a State actor for discrimination against a protected class to be unconstitutional, but I guess that isn't so.


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 20, 2016)

If they were smart they would find someone with a handicap that can only snowboard and can't ski.


----------



## manhattanskier (Apr 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> If they were smart they would find someone with a handicap that can only snowboard and can't ski.



There are ways for people with many kinds of disabilities to ski, so there is no case there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2016)

There's no legal case one way or another.  No laws against Alta (or any other business)  being lame.


----------



## steamboat1 (Apr 20, 2016)

No laws against thinking businesses are lame either. There are laws about who uses mens & womens bathrooms though.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 20, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> So what exactly do these posts have to do with Northeast Mountain Adventure



Good point


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 20, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> There are laws about who uses mens & womens bathrooms though.



You're comparing those recent laws with snowboarding at Alta?

Okay


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 20, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> You're comparing those recent laws with snowboarding at Alta?
> 
> Okay



Yeah, not really the same at all.  It was pretty bad that last year we had racial tension and people upset about same sex marriage and LGBT rights....and these guys in Federal Court claiming that their "civil rights" were violated because they could not do a specific activity at a private business that leases land from the US Forest Service, and has been since 1938.  I know it is a very personal issue for folks, but really, it is a choice as to if you ski or snowboard and it really smacks of "first world problems" to be filing a federal case over it when people's civil rights ARE being violated.


----------



## steamboat1 (Apr 20, 2016)




----------



## Los (Apr 22, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I know it is a very personal issue for folks, but really, it is a choice as to if you ski or snowboard and it really smacks of "first world problems"



No rational human being could disagree with this.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 25, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I know it is a very personal issue for folks, but really, it is a choice as to if you ski or snowboard



You could argue that people who were persecuted over their religious beliefs could have chosen a different religion.

An extreme example, yes, but it's not that cut and dry


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 25, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> You could argue that people who were persecuted over their religious beliefs could have chosen a different religion.
> 
> An extreme example, yes, but it's not that cut and dry



Religious beliefs are protected by the U.S. Constitution; a choice of recreation is not.


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 25, 2016)

I am a devout snowboarder.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2016)

Got a meeting this morning at the firm that represented the pro-snowboard side and just lost. Think they will let me in?






Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Cannonball (May 11, 2016)

Did you go there to pitch them on your idea that if Snowboarding were considered a religion they would have a constitutional case?  I think it's a brilliant idea and you just may be the one who finally changes the face Alta.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 11, 2016)

I think you should've been a little more forward and wore your Alta Tie!


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2016)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I think you should've been a little more forward and wore your Alta Tie!



Yes but I had a hearing today so that would not work too well.  Subtle is better!


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> *Did you go there to pitch them on your idea that if Snowboarding were considered a religion they would have a constitutional case?*  I think it's a brilliant idea and you just may be the one who finally changes the face Alta.



Don't laugh.  The way this nation and it's wacky legal system are going, it wouldn't shock me if someone tries.


----------



## Domeskier (May 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Don't laugh.  The way this nation and it's wacky legal system are going, it wouldn't shock me if someone tries.



In Massachusetts, the DMV cannot prevent adherents of some satirical religion from wearing pots on their heads in license photos:

http://www.people.com/article/pastafarian-wins-right-wear-colander-dmv-photo


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 11, 2016)

I think the pastafarians are a close religion to the spagettiheads.Captain Spagettihead.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> In Massachusetts, the DMV cannot prevent adherents of some satirical religion from wearing pots on their heads in license photos:



In Massachusetts, that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Cannonball (May 11, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> In Massachusetts, the DMV cannot prevent adherents of some satirical religion from wearing pots on their heads in license photos:
> 
> http://www.people.com/article/pastafarian-wins-right-wear-colander-dmv-photo



Seems as legit as any other make-believe reason somebody has to dress a certain way.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> Seems as legit as any other make-believe reason somebody has to dress a certain way.



It certainly does.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 11, 2016)

Well hopefully in a few short weeks the appeal period will pass and this can be put to bed.


----------



## Cannonball (May 12, 2016)

If only there was another way to finally put this to bed.  Hmmm....


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 12, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> If only there was another way to finally put this to bed.  Hmmm....



Banning snowboards nationwide?   That's a bit draconian.


----------



## mriceyman (May 12, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> In Massachusetts, the DMV cannot prevent adherents of some satirical religion from wearing pots on their heads in license photos:
> 
> http://www.people.com/article/pastafarian-wins-right-wear-colander-dmv-photo



Gotta love america


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2016)

They have petitioned for en banc review:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40202287&ni...arent-giving-up-fight-against-ski-resorts-ban


----------



## Domeskier (Jun 15, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> They have petitioned for en banc review:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=40202287&ni...arent-giving-up-fight-against-ski-resorts-ban



Who is funding this lunacy?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Who is funding this lunacy?



*This guy.*

Hence why I don't buy Skullcandy products.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 15, 2016)

What's the percentage of cases where an en banc review is actually granted? I'd imagine it would be pretty low and can't see them convincing enough of the judges to grant the review in a waste of time case like this.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2016)

cdskier said:


> What's the percentage of cases where an en banc review is actually granted? I'd imagine it would be pretty low and can't see them convincing enough of the judges to grant the review in a waste of time case like this.



Exactly.  Which means that they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court for cert.


----------



## Domeskier (Jun 15, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> *This guy.*
> 
> Hence why I don't buy Skullcandy products.



Ha.  I guess he thinks it's an effective marketing ploy to his target demographic...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Ha.  I guess he thinks it's an effective marketing ploy to his target demographic...



Exactly.  At Alta's expense.


----------



## Domeskier (Jun 15, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Exactly.  At Alta's expense.



If there are any circumstances where U.S. courts can awards costs to the prevailing party, this one would have to fit the bill.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> If there are any circumstances where U.S. courts can awards costs to the prevailing party, this one would have to fit the bill.



Yeah, I agree.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 23, 2016)

The latest:

http://unofficialnetworks.com/2016/...-petition-to-revisit-altas-skiers-only-policy


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 1, 2016)

http://thesnowgauge.net/united-states/exclusive-alta-set-to-welcome-snowboarders/


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 1, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> http://thesnowgauge.net/united-states/exclusive-alta-set-to-welcome-snowboarders/



Um, riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhht.  :lol:

http://www.alta.com/the-mountain/mountain-info/alta-fine-print-and-info-policies



> Important info for your skiing at Alta
> 
> Equipment Allowed (Skis)
> 
> Alta Ski Area is for skiers and restricts equipment other than skis (which means skis that have metal edges, retaining devices and are attached to ski boots by bindings)  for anyone who wants to ride the lifts and ski the mountain or play around the base areas.



And no appeal to the US Supreme Court.  It is a resolved issue.


----------



## cdskier (Dec 1, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> http://thesnowgauge.net/united-states/exclusive-alta-set-to-welcome-snowboarders/



This article is pretty funny if you read the entire thing. "Equity for All-ta!" LOL


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 1, 2016)

cdskier said:


> This article is pretty funny if you read the entire thing. "Equity for All-ta!" LOL



Indeed.  The comments underneath are funny because at least one reader thought it was real and that the alleged employee needed to be fired for racist comments.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2017)

Bump.  

So just read this.  Reminds me of this case.  

https://vtdigger.org/2017/07/16/pond-rule-change-could-favor-lawyers-power-boat-over-rowers/


----------

