Very true. I think it may be because most folks see MRG and Alta having more desirable terrain.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Let's see if this has any legs!
- Thread starter WoodCore
- Start date
Very true. I think it may be because most folks see MRG and Alta having more desirable terrain.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Amen. And it's being done under the false pretense of "fairness".
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.
Not as sad as an adult not understanding the concept and definition of discrimination. Good grief.
I'm not. It's economically unfeasible.
C-Rex
New member
How do you figure I don't understand the concept and definition, smart guy?
They are fighting authority. And any publicity is good publicity.
jimk
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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.
That's a funny video.
dl
New member
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".
MadMadWorld
Active member
Should all female gyms be banned?
mbedle
Well-known member
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
New member
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
Active member
mbedle
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
