Let's see if this has any legs!

[Funky_Catskills]

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]

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]

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

 

[mbedle]

Yeah, I forgot that one in Vermont.

 

[Funky_Catskills]

Thought you forgot the other one in Utah...

 

[Edd]

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]

MRG doesn't allow snowboarding?

 

[thetrailboss]

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"

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]

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]

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]

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]

lol I was being very sarcastic

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

Good one...

 

[thetrailboss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).