Let's see if this has any legs!

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.

1000x500px-LL-b9da5050_341aeb29_blueknob14feb10%2520013%5B1%5D.jpg

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.

Let's see if this has any legs!

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Moderator

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads