There is no "right" to snowboard at Alta. And there are plenty of
places for snowboarders to scrape the snow off of the mountain, destroy mogul
runs, and run into other skiers.Alta is a private resort that
targets a specific segment of the winter mountain sports market - skiers. Bring
you downhills, telemark, slalom skis, etc. But take your snow-scrapers
This has got to be the stupidest thing i have ever considered!!!I
own a ski resort...for skiers. I get sued because a snowboarder wants to
snowboard on my ski hill...Next, i am going to sue Taco Bell for
refusing to fill my request for a Big Mac...
I think I might Sue the ski resorts so that I can have sleds, tubes, toboggans,
snowmobiles, snowshoeing, dog sled racing, etc.Skiing and
snowboarding are different. I have done both and I like them both. They are
different, but both great.If Alta wants skiiers only, then so be it. If
the snowboarders win this, I will sue so I can have my dog sled racing at all of
the snowboarding resorts. Dog tracks will be great for your halfpipes.
Don't 'board, don't ski, don't care about hurt feelings due
to 'boarders not being able to ski Alta. This appears to be a waste of a
lot of people's time and energy to respond to a whine from a perpetually
offended self-absorbed generation.It appears everyone is free to
"ski" Alta, even 'boarders. Leave the snow board in the car and
strap on a pair of skis and you are good to go.Or look at it this
way: No Ski Boots, No Skis, no Skiing (Service).
Sorry snowboarders, this dog won't hunt. There is plenty of precedent for
"discrimination" against certain activities on Forest Service land. How
about all those trails where no horses/ATV's/bicycles aren't allowed?
How about no campfires? How about artificial flies and lures only?And even snowboarders should be hoping the judge dismisses this case. If he
rules that snowboarders have to be allowed at Alta, be ready for other winter
sports groups to demand that they be included as well. Your Alta skiing (or
snowboarding) experience isn't going to be much fun with snowmobiles
zipping around, is it?
The Fourteenth Amendment again? When will it stop? It's not as if there
aren't other places for people to snowboard. Some people need to find some
service projects so they don't waste taxpayer money on frivolous things. As
Allowing snowboarders at Alta would be a slippery slope to civil rights for
everyone and we can't have that around here.In reality Alta is meh. A
decent place but hardly the mecca so many people make it out to be. Plus Alta
skiers really don't deserve the conceit they all seem to have.
I agree that they should be allowed to use Snow Boards at Alta, however, they
should not be allowed to use any of the trams or lifts. They would have to hike
up the mountain in order to snow board.
The argument that this is federal land and open to anyone for access does not
hold when the land is under lease for a specific business. The business has the
right to set the rules and laws and use of the land according to tier lease with
the federal government. There is a definite safety and environmental conflict
with the 2 different kinds of sports where safety is a primary risk between the
2 sports.Its like dirt car drivers suing large paved race tracks so
they can run dirt cars on any track they want. Its a deadly combination and so
is this mixing of sports where risk and danger are relatively high. On the other
hand, the ski resort can charge snow boarders $200 and hour to use the ski
slopes and lifts and training for different safety needs.But it
would be best if the judge honors the resort owners rules and laws for the
benefit and safety of their primary and target group of customers.
I am a conceited Alta skier. I simply don't like anyone messing up my snow
with those inferior snowboards or their ilk wandering into my dining facility
with all that baggy garb they wear...
Rick Alden, Drew Hicken, Bjorn Leines and Richard Vargas are suing on the basis
of their "Constitutional" right. They will open the door for problems
for other groups since if I were a legislator I would look to new rules for this
dying sport. I may be wrong but I don't believe a helmet law for
snowboarders exists in Utah and it should whether the Alta suit moves forward or
not. The disruptive and unsafe activities of snowboarders should also be
considered for new laws everywhere in the state. What a lame offense in
"using" the Constitution.
@carmanI totally agree, because skiers NEVER run into other skiers!
Nor do skis do anything to scrape the snow off mountains. In fact, the very
nature of skiing acts to lift the snow back into the mountains in its perfect
form like that of skiers themselves. It's scienceSorry, bad
attempt at sarcasm. You guys crack me up with how firmly you claim to believe
that snowboarding ruins your experience. In reality, you just don't like
the sub-culture that started snowboarding. For the record, I agree
that lawsuits like this shouldn't happen. Let the skiers have their
exclusive club away from the snowboarder rabble. I'd rather not be around
that type of skier anyway
First, this lawsuit is so ridiculous that I will be shocked if it is not thrown
out.Second, I wish people like these snowboarders would think about
the fact that when they argue cases like this for their own selfish purposes, if
they were to win they would forever mangle the laws for everyone and further
tear holes in the Constitution.Third, if this land is under lease
then the company should have rights as if they owned it as far as anybody (other
than the lessor) is concerned. Our company is a lessee of the building that we
are in. Do people have a right to come in and use it without the permission of
our company? In the same way, use of that slope is a PRIVILEGE granted by the
lessor and the lessee. Yes, there are laws regarding discrimination, but the
more people tweak those laws, the more clouded the RIGHTS of the lessee become.
It isn't about safety. Anyone who skis knows that boarders are like
snowplows when it comes to flattening out the mountain. Moguls and snowboards
just don't mix.I think that the safety issue is used because
it's a more "legitimate" argument.That being said,
it's always a joy when a boarder runs over the back of your skis in line
and other his shoulder says "Sorry dude. On my way to some rad
carvin."Leave ONE LAST BASTION of great skiing to the skiers.
GO JARED BENNETT! Kick their butts.
It is public land.
If they can sue to get snowboards at the ski resorts, can I sue so that I can
bring my snow tubes and sleds up the ski lifts too? I figure a tubing run that
long has got to be a lot of fun too.
* Comment included overly speculative thoughts or information not included in
the story.>sorry, I'm unable to locate the speculation in
my comment? Perhaps the fact that other things are banned besides snowboards? Is
that a surprise or harmful to anyone? * Comments should be
thoughtful and helpful to your fellow readers with additional insight or
counterpoints to the article.> check, thoughtful and helpful,
presenting other rules and what might also happen * Avoid personal
attacks and other inappropriate responses to fellow readers.>
check, no personal attacks * Treat other readers as you would if
you were speaking to them from a microphone, looking them in the eyes, then
passing the microphone cordially to the next contributor.>
check, no problem, I could even say this to my mother or over the pulpit********************I ride fat bikes and have not been
treated fairly by Alta, they ban fat bikes on the snow and ski lifts!I demand equal rights with skiers, it is un-American and bigoted to ban fat
bikes on the slopes while allowing skiers! Discrimination and bigotry at its
worst!*********I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here?
Perhaps the literary device of parallel sarcasm is banned?
Can taxpayers sue these snowboarders and their law firm for wasting our money?
(I would never use this firm just because of this case) What a joke! The
judge should summarily rule on this case and toss it so far no one dares to
bring anything like it back. It is an insult to thinking people everywhere.
What's next, a lawsuit to get into any cabin around Alta because it is
built on land leased from Federal government?
@Ernest T. BassIt seems to be particularly conceited to claim to be
the single arbitrator of what constitutes civil rights. This lawsuit is merely an indication how a culture of passive/aggressive
victim power has descended a slippery slope into the completely irrational and
inane. @one vote"It is
public land."They are private lifts (and if the land is leased,
it is not fully public any longer either)So your point is?
I've skied Alta multiple times. I also am very aware of the conditions of
slopes shared by boards and skis. What is not discussed in the article are the
shapes of the slopes that are created by the passage of different equipment.
Skiers in steep terrain, will shape moguls that are steep sided, close, and a
fish scale type pattern. When boards enter into the same area, the bumps all
get scraped into wider, flatter, and non homogenous flat white ice. Wide and
flat works for snowboards, and is shaped by those same passing boards. Alta is
not a best place for snow boarders. The flats are shallow slope, and the steeps
are narrow. The wilderness area at the back of Alta should be good for
boards,,, but there are many places, flat and level places back there where
skiers must pole their way through deep snow. Boards cannot pole. But how do
boards hike the crest to get to the slopes ?But where trails are
narrow, close steep bumps are fun, and nearly needed for control AND the ability
of the slope to hold new snow fall. Alta is nearly all narrow trails,,, as is
That this case was not immediately thown out is an indication of how broken our
legal system is and how far away from reality most judges are.We are
officially in an age where people can claim discrimination against a behavior,
not an immutable characteristic. Snowboarding is a behavior or activity and not
immutable. No one was "born to snowboard only". And before
all the atheists start with the "religion is a behavior" comments:
Freedom of Religion is the first of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers obviously felt that religion was important enough to
society to carve it out specifically. No special right exists for