Alta is for Nazis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion

FIFY.................

---

you missd out on the Lugan comment:fm:
damn shame

I want Ski runs at Snowbird to be exclusive for Skiers only and if USFC doesn't concide that right then we need a Lawsuit to protect our rights.:nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenny Satch

I want Ski runs at Snowbird to be exclusive for Skiers only and if USFC doesn't concide that right then we need a Lawsuit to protect our rights.:nonono2:

---

That'll happen when the republicans repeal Obamacare.

"Since the amendment refers to "any person" and not just freedmen, the courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to offer fundamental protection to all persons"

The amendment is explicit in covering all people. Snowboarders, by virtue of being human beings and citizens of the U.S. are afforded equal protection under the 14th.

Protected classes are offered enhanced protection, snowboarders are not. This point is moot, however, because the basic protection of the 14th ensures that policies which create a form of inequality must have a rational basis.

Alta's policy is on record as being based on safety. Everyone knows that argument is hollow. Without that there is no reason to exclude boarders beyond the arbitrary decision of a few people. And arbitrary is specifically called out as not being a valid basis for exclusion.

I want the right to have the right to be right about things that seem wrong even though the rights of the many can at times be waived due to the right of protecting the rights of the rightist even if they're wrong about their rights.

you got that right as I would say

sounds like boarders making an argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

That'll happen when the republicans repeal Obamacare.

---

you promise:biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

"Since the amendment refers to "any person" and not just freedmen, the courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to offer fundamental protection to all persons"

The amendment is explicit in covering all people. Snowboarders, by virtue of being human beings and citizens of the U.S. are afforded equal protection under the 14th.

Protected classes are offered enhanced protection, snowboarders are not. This point is moot, however, because the basic protection of the 14th ensures that policies which create a form of inequality must have a rational basis.

Alta's policy is on record as being based on safety. Everyone knows that argument is hollow. Without that there is no reason to exclude boarders beyond the arbitrary decision of a few people. And arbitrary is specifically called out as not being a valid basis for exclusion.

---

Exactly...... If it makes it to trial, they will be forced, and it will not be pretty.

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

I see where the suit describes a conversation between (Skullcandy CEO) Rick Alden and (Alta GM) Onno. Onno is quoted as saying:

Quote:

---

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

---

The suit goes on to describe Alta's policy being based upon this:

Quote:

---

51. Alta’s Plan states that uphill and downhill travel must be accepted and approved
by Alta and that Alta “reserves the right to exclude any type of skiing device that they deem
creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers and/or the user of the device, or any device they deem
Case 2:14-cv-00026-PMW Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 262
causes undue damages to the quality of the snow, or is not consistent with the business
management decisions.”
52. Ostensibly under this provision, Alta enforces its anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban. By approving Alta’s Plan, the USFS has allowed Alta to ban snowboarders
from using public land.

---

It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.

Quote:

---

To conserve space and avoid belaboring the point, “snowboarders,” as used hereinafter, refers
both to people who snowboard and the type of people that Alta’s ownership, management, and
customers believe to participate in snowboarding.

---

I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

[QUOTE=DasBlunt;4229681]it will not be pretty.[/QUOT

Regilion, Race, Politics and or Life choices are not the people being denied access to Alta but the knuckheads that think they're in the same league of discrimination are PRETTY fuckin
stupid
stupid
stupid

Fighting the fight for such important issues as whether you can ride your board down some ski hill that for its (possibly foolish) own business reasons has excluded your toy.

Whats next? - roller skate rinks have to allow skateboards? Downhill mtn bike courses have to allow mountain boards? Crosscountry skiing areas have to allow snowmobiles? Ski resorts have to allow tubing on all runs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

---

Under a 40-year permit issued to Alta by the Forest Service in 2002, the ski area is allowed to restrict any type of skiing device that creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers.

The Forest Service said it agrees with Alta that the way snowboarders slide down the slopes is a legitimate safety concern for skiers. In a filing last week, Alta attorneys explained that skiers find the slopes at Alta more peaceful, safe and enjoyable because they don't have to worry about being hit by snowboarders whose sideways stance leaves them with a blind spot that can make their wide, sweeping turns a danger to others on the slopes.

"These differences create safety concerns that can be avoided or minimized by not allowing snowboarders," Forest Service lawyers wrote in the new filing.
<article>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

---

This is one area I think is clear in the law but don't know of any precedent, so it's difficult to predict how the judge will process that argument. It's Alta's best argument and a perfectly valid one for places like MRG and DV. The problem is the ARE in the snowboarding business because from a safety/functional/landuse pov skiing and snowboarding are one industry. They are interchangeable and while Alta is in the industry, they've arbitrarily chosen to ban snowboarding. Clever business plans that exclude millions of people from accessing public land. The negative impact (harm) of their policy is denying the experience they proudly describe to a significant portion of the tax paying public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

---

The USFS's court filing was all over the safety claim, per above. As the overseer of Alta's lease and federal representative, USFS reasoning is critical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.

---

Concede the point but I don't think that has any bearing. It's upstream of the conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

---

They don't, they simply ban everyone on one plank*

*unless you skiboard

I snowboard and don't give a shit about riding Alta. Enjoy your hill. Plenty of other places for me to carve!

Would someone just open up a mountain for snowboarders only and shut these fucking cunts up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtl_ripper

I snowboard and don't give a shit about riding Alta. Enjoy your hill. Plenty of other places for me to carve!

---

Right on. There's got to be somewhere for them to unite, better Alta than somewhere worthwhile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

I see where the suit describes a conversation between (Skullcandy CEO) Rick Alden and (Alta GM) Onno. Onno is quoted as saying:

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

The suit goes on to describe Alta's policy being based upon this:
51. Alta’s Plan states that uphill and downhill travel must be accepted and approved
by Alta and that Alta “reserves the right to exclude any type of skiing device that they deem
creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers and/or the user of the device, or any device they deem
Case 2:14-cv-00026-PMW Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 262
causes undue damages to the quality of the snow, or is not consistent with the business
management decisions.”
52. Ostensibly under this provision, Alta enforces its anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban. By approving Alta’s Plan, the USFS has allowed Alta to ban snowboarders
from using public land.




It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.



I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

---

Wow, amazing.

Thank you for the help on this case, this information and the logical order presented is actually very helpful to the snowboard lobby. It points out Alta's illogical safety defense, and it shows their cards about how the conversation went WITH the forest service. Awesome.

Seems the forest service are the real defendants, and will ultimately have to require Alta to revise their master plan.

It is done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmg97

Would someone just open up a mountain for snowboarders only and shut these fucking cunts up.

---

I thought that was called Mountain Creek.

Got an actual jd to look at the arguments in Alta's motion for dismissal as well as the original complaint. His thoughts:

on USFS being a defendant and being described as acting on behalf of the state:

Here I think you may be right. If the gov't is reviewing Alta's plan every year, then that could include review of the proposal to exclude snowboarders. But that raises another problem: basically federal agencies can do almost whatever the hell they want based on a line of cases laying out what's called Chevron deference. Under this, as long as the agency's can come up with a remotely plausible reason for their action, courts defer to the agency - The idea is that we don't want judges running every aspect of the gov't.

on the 14th covering access to USFS land, specifically the "privleges and liberty" protection:

Privileges or immunities is really narrowly interpreted and generally ignored, so "liberty," believe it or not, is the stronger argument here. But generally we don't have many privileges or liberty when it comes to other folks' property, which I think is what the leased land is for Alta - they pay for a certain set of private rights to the land, which may trump yours. Just like if you rented a subsidized condo from the gov't, other people wouldn't be able to use the condo for parties.

on the argument Alta can ban snowboarding as a business decision/strategy:

See Chevron comment above. Basically, if this was an Agency action, they are usually given very substantial latitude by the courts. The old joke is that if a judge can't come up with a rational basis, it just means that he/she lacks imagination.

Summary:

So, the lawsuit is probably about publicity...but publicity can be effective when you're dealing with bureaucrats, so there's a chance they'll change their mind. A judge probably won't tell them to reverse themselves, though.

if the USFS has to concede no limitations on equipment used by the public on their lands then I can't wait to ride my kayak down them slopes
imagine the can of worms you worms want to open up
stop barking about public land and how they should be used by the uninvited

Is there an organization called the US Ski, Snowboard and Kayak Association? I thought you were trolling and not actually that stupid to believe such a blatantly false premise

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...64542518,d.aWc onliy u have the power

COULD BE MEENING byu war cry, (CHEATERS )).!-<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenny Satch

if the USFS has to concede no limitations on equipment used by the public on their lands then I can't wait to ride my kayak down them slopes
imagine the can of worms you worms want to open up
stop barking about public land and how they should be used by the uninvited

---

Except there would be a valid concern for safety there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmg97

Would someone just open up a mountain for snowboarders only and shut these fucking cunts up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

I thought that was called Mountain Creek.

---

Another one is called Brighton, or as a native Utard would say, Bri-en.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

Is there an organization called the US Ski, Snowboard and Kayak Association? I thought you were trolling and not actually that stupid to believe such a blatantly false premise

---

Yeah, but you're talking to a guy that somehow managed to get hit by a snowboarder at a resort that does not allow snowboarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

So, the lawsuit is probably about publicity...but publicity can be effective when you're dealing with bureaucrats, so there's a chance they'll change their mind. A judge probably won't tell them to reverse themselves, though.

---

So basically after a reality check you agree that the legal merits of the suit are thin if not completely lacking?

If you really want to ride at Alta don't you snowboarders do something positive like start a petition of boarders that would buy passes to Alta and/or skiers at alta that would not mind boarders there? Combine it with some proposals and examples for how other resorts have overcome similar challenges with respect to boarders rather than chasing lost cause law suits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

start a petition of boarders that would buy passes to Alta

---

The problem with this is that Alta has no lack of customers, so why would they care?

Money talks, bullshit walks.

Maybe they have no interest in additional income, but I'd be surprised.

No lack of customers=Money talking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GPP33

Except there would be a valid concern for safety there.

---

I'll take my chances against the high speed snow kayak over some jabroni trying to throw a pizza but accidentally doing French fries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

So basically after a reality check you agree that the legal merits of the suit are thin if not completely lacking?

---

My brother more or less accepted Wasatch Equality's points but notes the judge will probably say the court should not be the one making the decision. Like with the other resorts and Aspen in particular, the system is set up for the USFS to make the call. Unfortunately they're complicit and the good ole boys won't play fair. The question is how much favoritism and collusion the USFS will get away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

If you really want to ride at Alta don't you snowboarders do something positive like start a petition of boarders that would buy passes to Alta and/or skiers at alta that would not mind boarders there? Combine it with some proposals and examples for how other resorts have overcome similar challenges with respect to boarders rather than chasing lost cause law suits?

---

The safety of snowboarding is self evident, Alta is aware of it but they simply don't give a shit. They're going to keep their little corner of the world to them as long as they possibly can. Reason left the building when they refused to fall in line with every other public land ski resort in the country.

Alta's so insulated economically because they lease an incredible piece of land. As noted, they don't need more business. The most influential way of communicating with them is by imposing a financial burden and pressuring them to change.

Also the decision maker is the USFS, they could change the policy unilaterally. Similar to the Attorney General rescheduling cannabis. He can, but he's just too much of a chicken shit to do the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

My brother more or less accepted Wasatch Equality's points but notes the judge will probably say the court should not be the one making the decision.

---

You're talking about the paraphrase or quote that you made above from a JD? Where in that did he "more or less accepted Wasatch Equity's points."

no boarders is obviously an attractive business idea,Alta stumbled into..it attracts more business with the exclusiveness; why mess with a good thing, to appease a few punk whiney bitches, who will prob get Paralyized ,Crashin, in a season or two anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Where in that did he "more or less accepted Wasatch Equity's points."

---

He thinks USFS acceptance of Alta's discriminatory policy does constitute state action. He thinks the 14th amendment does offer protection in this area. Those are important points Alta and USFS do not concede.

I don't think you understand what "discriminatory policy" means.

Is a restaurant that makes men wear jackets "discriminating" against dirtbags? No. Is the PGA "discriminating" against golfers who want to use square-grooved golf clubs? Don't be a retard. The 14th Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on snowboarding v. skiing, and any attorney who argues that it does is getting laughed at throughout the courthouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Maybe they have no interest in additional income, but I'd be surprised.

---

was it this thread or another one where grrr mentioned snowboarding dropping by ~30%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontana

He thinks USFS acceptance of Alta's discriminatory policy does constitute state action. He thinks the 14th amendment does offer protection in this area. Those are important points Alta and USFS do not concede.

---

That's not at all what he said in the text that you posted on the last page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

I don't think you understand what "discriminatory policy" means.

Is a restaurant that makes men wear jackets "discriminating" against dirtbags? No. Is the PGA "discriminating" against golfers who want to use square-grooved golf clubs? Don't be a retard. The 14th Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on snowboarding v. skiing, and any attorney who argues that it does is getting laughed at throughout the courthouse.

---

You have missed all current salient points on this subject with your post, discriminatory has nothing to do with it, unless it is on public land…..keep up retard, snowboarders won already.

PGA
Restaurant
private business'

please provide more accurate examples that can correctly show YOUR point, or STFU.

Aspen was gripped by the balls and decided NOT to waste a bunch of the shareholders money on something so stupid.

I just keep coming back to Alta's zipline comment and can't help but laugh…..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blowupthemoon

http://www.allworldwars.com/image/08...Posters065.jpg

---

If you say "Bli med oss nordover" a bunch of times in a row it starts sounding like "blind-ass snowboarder."
:the_finge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

PGA
Restaurant
private business.

---

Alta lifts. Private business. Pretty simple.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using TGR Forums

Alta's terrain mostly empties out to long flat slogs to get back to a lift. The terrain is way overrated and already way over crowded. Boarders are better off at Snowbird.