MLK Day .. Diversity .. An Open Request to MRG

[riverc0il]

But they are not a private club. MRG is a co-op, and most co-ops are indeed open to the public.

 

[riverc0il]

Cannon bans hiking on the ski trails. I don't think state ownership really enters into it as this is about activities. The state makes all sorts of rules about what activities are allowed on their land at various times, If they felt they had a reason to ban snowboards (or sleds, or skis in terrain parks) you could argue with them through channels. But you'd get no traction if you brought up the discrimination issue because it doesn't apply to activities.

This is 100% correct. But the difference between Cannon and MRG is if Cannon banned boarding then they would have to contend with an angry public and angry legislatures that would pressure or change the management to get what the public wants. MRG is under no such political pressure or burden to please the majority of the electorate, MRG need only please the majority of its shareholders.

 

[nhski]

This is 100% correct. But the difference between Cannon and MRG is if Cannon banned boarding then they would have to contend with an angry public and angry legislatures that would pressure or change the management to get what the public wants. MRG is under no such political pressure or burden to please the majority of the electorate, MRG need only please the majority of its shareholders.

This is what i was attempting to say, kind of. Cannon could not ban boarding b/c they are held accountable being that they are public. I don't think they could have a valid reason to do it. MRG on the other hand, only has to answer to the share holders. Public vs. private, big difference between what they can and cannot do.

 

[nhski]

But they are not a private club. MRG is a co-op, and most co-ops are indeed open to the public.

They are open to the public, but the public has no say in decisions. Once they become shareholders and have a say, they are no longer considered public and are apart of the private ownership.

 

[David Metsky]

To me, If cannon banned boarding it would be like a public golf course not allowing females to play.

Bad analogy. Gender is a protected class and a ban would raise valid legal issues. A better analogy would be if the golf course banned frisbee golf. Anyone can play golf but no one can play frisbee golf.

Do you really think Cannon could get away with banning snowboarding? MRG only needs to say thats the way they want it.

There's certainly no legal reason that Cannon management couldn't. Public opinion and monetary reason would probably make that a silly and quickly overridden by the state, but there's no way it makes for a legal case.

Cannon, i don't think could just say that, they would have to have a good reason. And yes i think discrimination could be brought up if they didn't have a valid reason.

Nope, since people who snowboard are not a protected class. The law simply doesn't support that case.

 

[Marc]

Nope, since people who snowboard are not a protected class. The law simply doesn't support that case.

Careful with your words, by the way. I agree with your argument, but the hypothetical of Cannon banning the use of snowboards on their ski trails does have anything to do with a protected class of people.

It would be no different than Cannon outlawing the use of sleds on their trails. It has nothing to do with the people who like to sled.

 

[nhski]

Bad analogy. Gender is a protected class and a ban would raise valid legal issues. A better analogy would be if the golf course banned frisbee golf. Anyone can play golf but no one can play frisbee golf.

Your right, bad analogy.

There's certainly no legal reason that Cannon management couldn't. Public opinion and monetary reason would probably make that a silly and quickly overridden by the state, but there's no way it makes for a legal case.

I don't think state ownership really enters into it as this is about activities.

So you agee that banning boarding would never fly at Cannon and that boarders could do something about it. This was my point, Cannon you could do something about it to that could actually make a difference. I think we all agree that is not the case with MRG. And the reason this would work is that it is state owned. Cannon mgmt. could not give a valid reason for doing it that i have heard of yet.

Nope, since people who snowboard are not a protected class. The law simply doesn't support that case.

Your right, good thing i'm not a laywer.

My whole point in bringing up Cannon vs. MRG is that MRG, b/c they are privately owned, can do what they want as long as it doesn't break the law, no matter the level of protest.

 

[millerm277]

My whole point in bringing up Cannon vs. MRG is that MRG, b/c they are privately owned, can do what they want as long as it doesn't break the law, no matter the level of protest.

Yup, as long as the co-op shareholders don't want snowboarding, there will be no snowboarding...they don't need a reason.

 

[ctenidae]

When it comes down to it, the only pressure that would be on Cannon if they banned snowboarders is, in the end, economic. No snowoarders equals, theoretically, fewer ticket sales, lowering the revenue of the hill and increasing the state subsidy required to keep it open. The political pressure stems from that. MRG also has financial pressures, but in their case they're not strong enough to sway the co-op.

 

[David Metsky]

I agree with your argument, but the hypothetical of Cannon banning the use of snowboards on their ski trails does have anything to do with a protected class of people.

That was exactly my point, sorry I worded it poorly.

 

[JimG.]

Every year...it's amazing!

The power of forbidden fruit.

 

[ctenidae]

Every year...it's amazing!

The power of forbidden fruit.

Every year? More like every 6 weeks.

Now, where's my apple?

 

[hammer]

I've been following the MRG snowboarder debates for some time and one question/comment sticks out...

I know that AZ has a few snowboarder members who would appreciate the terrain and conditions at MRG, but most snowboarders I see on the slopes are either on groomed trails or terrain parks, neither of which MRG is known for.

My prediction would be that, if MRG did allow snowboarders, there would be an initial burst of snowboarders (people tasting the previously forbidden fruit) but as time went on the overall percentage of snowboarders going to MRG would end up being pretty small.

 

[millerm277]

My prediction would be that, if MRG did allow snowboarders, there would be an initial burst of snowboarders (people tasting the previously forbidden fruit) but as time went on the overall percentage of snowboarders going to MRG would end up being pretty small.

That would sound likely to me as well, but that also means...why lift it? Snowboarders probably wouldn't contribute much to their bottom line, especially when you consider the people who currently ski MRG who would be alienated from it. (Yes, a lot of people go there to not have snowboarders).

 

[riverc0il]

II know that AZ has a few snowboarder members who would appreciate the terrain and conditions at MRG, but most snowboarders I see on the slopes are either on groomed trails or terrain parks, neither of which MRG is known for.

You don't ski where I ski. Lots of amazing boarders that can rip moguls and are as far off the groomers as I am. Boarders that love powder and trees would love MRG just as much as skiers. Don't forget... the majority of skiers are either on groomer slopes or terrain parks as well....

 

[danny p]

You don't ski where I ski. Lots of amazing boarders that can rip moguls and are as far off the groomers as I am. Boarders that love powder and trees would love MRG just as much as skiers.

Thanks rivercoil, saved me some time having to address this. I hate groomers, I hate unchallenging terrain and the only way I end up in the terrain park is if I come out the woods and find myself there (sometimes on purpose!) Don't generalize snowboaders!! Some of us attack a mountain just as you skiers do.

Originally Posted by hammer
My prediction would be that, if MRG did allow snowboarders, there would be an initial burst of snowboarders (people tasting the previously forbidden fruit) but as time went on the overall percentage of snowboarders going to MRG would end up being pretty small.

If this is the case, maybe they can let us slide on their hill then. An initial burst of snowboarders would only ruin the conditions for a week or two, then experienced professional shredders can visit whenever they want!!

 

[hammer]

Thanks rivercoil, saved me some time having to address this. I hate groomers, I hate unchallenging terrain and the only way I end up in the terrain park is if I come out the woods and find myself there (sometimes on purpose!) Don't generalize snowboaders!! Some of us attack a mountain just as you skiers do.

Not trying to generalize snowboarders...just trying to make a (perhaps uneducated) observation about what types of terrain snowboarders in general go to.

For those of you who do hit the trees and ungroomed, do you see a smaller percentage of snowboarders on those trails than on the groomed trails?

I've never been to MRG...I will want to go once my skills are to the point where I can appreciate the place. IMO the snowboarder exclusion makes the place as coming off a bit elitist and I don't see why they should keep it in place. I'm just wondering if economics/numbers do play into the co-op's decision to exclude snowboarders...after all, if there would only be a small set of core (wish I had a better word) snowboarders who would go, why bother? It wouldn't affect the bottom line all that much and, my goodness, they'd have to open the place up to a bunch of park rats as well...:roll:;-)

 

[riverc0il]

Yes, a similar percentage of boarders compared to the general population ski trees.

Regarding the financial issue, the Co-op could definitely use the revenue. The Co-op does well considering the business hurdles to overcome but the Co-op needs all the revenue it can generate, especially considering the debt issue to finance the Single refurbishment which is why there was (an on going) campaign to raise money through donations. This isn't about money though and I suspect it would take near financial ruin and dissolvement of the Co-op in its current state to change things. At least, that is what it would take for me to even consider it but I suspect most shareholders think along those lines as well.

 

[dmc]

Something I'd like to mention...

Just like MRG brings out a certain kind of skier - it's also going to bring out a certain kind of boarder...

no park - slow lifts - granola factor... Why leave the Bush?

 

[danny p]

Not trying to generalize snowboarders...just trying to make a (perhaps uneducated) observation about what types of terrain snowboarders in general go to.

sorry for misunderstanding you hammer, as a snowboarder its kinda like you are always on the defensive...I think that just as many snowboarders ride the trees as skiers, but never actually kept a tally.

I don't know where the great divide came from between boarders and skiers. I think that both snowboarders and skiers are SKIING, I just got one plank and skiers got two. I always use the verb, skied, such as I skied today, when in fact I snowboarded. If i say I went "riding" today too many people think I'm a snowmobiler. I consider myself downhill skiing even though i'm on a snowboard.

many snowboarders learned how to ride the mountain from skiers as well. Back when most of us snowboarders started their wasn't many experienced boarders to teach us, so I learned riding with skiers. First person to ever teach me how ski the trees and bumps was a skier friend of mine. I got all the respect in th world for anyone out on the hill, no matter what they have attached to their feet.