Printable View
We have resort locally that is 90% boarders. There are 4 other resorts to go to. Utah has like 9-10 others and really Brighton is 75% boarders. I'm with Schmidt. I mean what I'm going to sue you cause you put a tree there.
But seriously alta is for skiers.
Sure is fun to see all the skiers getting their panties in a wad over the semi-annual Alta snowboarding debate. Like it would just ruin the place if people rode sideways on one plank instead of two. Most of the skiers who really care about it, are gapic skiers anyway.
^^^speshlee this winter when most are ass sittin and never in utah!!!!!
This is like snowboarders hitting urban rails and getting busted then suing the owner of the rail because certain people are allowed to use them.
Or suing Bryce canyon because you can hike there but not ski.
^^i think that's a mixed algorithm!!!!!!
There are 2,200 skiable acres at Alta. There are 1.6 million acres in the Wasatch-Cache National forest (most of which are open to skiing and boarding). Alta represents 0.14% of the acreage of the national forest....
fuck alta and their stupid magic carpet lift ride and auto line gates. Natzi's still suck.
It would be nice to J Jones go rip the shit out of that place like it's never been done before.
My wife snowboarded for many years before coming back to tele/alpine. A quote "would there be a miserable place to snowboard than Alta?" A day full of post holing and traversing flats sounds awesome.
Bring out the dump truck
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/...er/AltaPOW.jpg
All it's going to take is a few pics of a group of 'boarders sitting in the snow in a blind spot under a break to get protected status. Heck man, they need protecting more than most.Quote:
Originally Posted by smitchell333
I in fact have two jobs, and never get fired, I just accept seasonal jobs that end at the end of the season... Because I prefer to ski and fly fish over working.Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker
Whens the last time you've seen a skier sidesliding 4 skiers worth of pow all day? At Alyeska the high traverse run just gets raped by snowboarders doing shitty traverses all over the place, so instead of having one traverse with a bunch of tracks down from it there are about half a billion traverses, from lazy snowboarders. I imagine Alta would be similar. It has nothing to do with turn shape/size and everything to do with how traverses are treated. Basically shitty snowboarders ruin way more snow than shitty skiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrGonzo
The best way for skiers and snowboarders to get along is to be separated from one another and Alta is doing a great job at keeping the peace.:fm:
Why not switch up Snowbird and Alta once a month and give snowboarders a chance to ride it Alta. A day at Snowbird without boarders would be interesting.
Skiers do the exact same thing already at Alta. The High Traverse is hundreds of yards wide in places by the middle of season. It would still suck to snowboard at Alta, but the argument that snowboards move snow around differently holds a lot less water than it used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey
when i snowboard at alta pre or post season it's normally fun and pretty easy to get around. i really need one of you sagacious, skier-bigot types to lay out how this would not be the case during the proper season and with the benefit of lift access.
really, if i didn't know any better i'd guess you're a bunch of defensive cunts that want to keep the goods to yourselves.
Alright, I'll bite. As a disclaimer, I ski and board, and I too splitboard Alta pre-season. I think for people like you and me snowboarding Alta wouldn't be much of a problem. However, there is a lot of traversing that we don't have to do when all we're doing is skinning up to our chosen spot. I could easily see boarders getting stuck heading from Collins over to Supreme, and I personally think the High T would suck on a board. Likewise, I don't see how a boarder would be able to do the uphill Ballroom traverse off Collins. Now, I believe all of that would be manageable for someone with familiarity regarding Alta's terrain, but for visitors who don't know Alta and boarders who, quite frankly, suck, I could see a lot of beaters fucking shit up for everyone else. That's my .02, I personally don't care if Alta bans me on my board - so I don't have an ax to grind I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
As has been mentioned, I believe it's laughable that they are trying to use the 14th Amendment.
you're right...you don't know any betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
As a snowboarder I would prefer to be around less of them myself. Skiers for that matter too. The less the better.
gotcha - the arguments about traffic, boarders postholing, etc are palatable - and seem like they'd pan out irl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swine
The sentiment that boarders wouldn't enjoy/appreciate/utilize the terrain at alta is one of the more baseless lines of reasoning i've come across.
Quote:
Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd
I can resonate with that one. Don't ask me how I do it, it just happens.
Never been done before??? Really??? :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by strawjack
Snowboarders at Alta! OMG!
Attachment 148713
Solution seems obvious: splitboard.
The world is a dumber place for this lawsuit. I know the attorney who filed it. I (used to) think he is fairly sharp. But unless he just filed this as a publicity stunt, or in hopes that Alta will allow boarders to avoid the legal fees, he seems pretty dim.
First, he may have filed this just to strong arm Alta (in which case, I think it's pretty unethical, since the lawsuit appears to lack a good faith basis). The suit states Alta pays about $300k-400k/year for its federal lease. Getting through summary judgment (where this suit should be disposed of) will cost Alta at least $100k. That's not an insignificant expense for Alta. If my pass prices go up as a result, I will be pissed.
As someone observed before, the lawsuit acknowledges there's no protected class or fundamental right, therefore the decision not to allow boarding is subject to rational basis review. Oddly, much of the language in the lawsuit acts as if snowboarders are a protected class, see footnote 2 where they write that 'to the extent Alta's decision is based on the idea snowboarders cannot handle the traverses, it demeans snowboarders.' There is no legal consequence to "demeaning" snowboarders. Those who are offended can take their business elsewhere.
Rational basis means basically, 'is there a logical argument in favor of the decision.' There may be room for debate, and many people may have valid points disagreeing with the stated basis for Alta's policy, but that doesn't mean Alta lacks a rational basis.
The complaint seems to acknowledge a rational basis. In their hairbrained attempts make Alta skiers sound like a bunch of dicks (and, to be fair, some are) the plaintiffs list a bunch of quotes of Alta skiers saying dumb things about their reasons for wanting to ski a place that doesn't have boarders. So, a bunch of Alta customers are quoted sayinhg they don't like riding with boarders. I think that is, in and of itself, enough for Alta's decision. Alta's customers prefer a skiing only resort. (This is the part that makes me think the lawsuit is just a publicity stunt). The complaint does make some allegation that Alta is a conduit for its customers' prejudices. I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have not seen that theory before (any other attorneys on here who are familiar with it?) I don't think it flies. Maybe it would have some legs if it were a conduit for customers' racism, but if there were a race-based classification, I don't see why you need to go there - you are already subject to strict scrutiny.
Possible rational bases for Alta's policy include: (1) our customers like it, (2) it distinguishes us in the marketplace, (3) we don't think they can handle the traverses, (4) they screw up our snow/traverses so it is harder for us to maintain them, (5) we find them dangerous because of the blindside.
I think any of them work, since any of them are logically arguable (even if not absolutely correct).
Regarding the traverses, Alta works really hard to keep the high T open in these lean snow years, and it's pretty marginal. If snowboards do scrape off more snow per person than skis, then allowing boards may make the difference that keeps the high T closed into February. I tend to think they would, and I fear that.
Also, a lot of the traverses specifically require that everyone keep their skis on. Alta does this to keep the flow. It's not because they love a beautiful herringbone on a ridge.
Personally, I like Alta how it is. I ski with plenty of boarders other places. I have nothing against them. I have no problem with a few stray boarders coming over from the Bird. It seems Alta has been trying to stop that lately and really don't understand why.
Good boarders could handle Alta fine, better than many skiers. But I think when you look at the whole spectrum of skiers and boarders, boarders fuck up the snow a little more and have a harder time with traverses. Alta would have to admit all boarders, since it can't invest in making all first timers participate in a basic traversing proficiency test. Ballroom would be streaked with tracks from boarders who couldn't stay on the traverse (like east facing honeycomb at solitude), the high T would be open less, backside traverse would be postholed and bottlenecked, and Devil's castle would be more of a shit show than it already is. Some skiers have problems with all of these places now, but the problems would increase disproportionately with boarders. To me, that is a perfectly good basis for not admitting them.
I will add one other thing - I don't like the potential unintended consequences of this lawsuit. If Alta can't ban boarders, why can it ban snowmobiles? Sure, some are dangerous, but like boarders, some could certainly ride uphill through a ski slope and not hit anybody. (Watershed restrictions probably cover this problem for LCC/BCC, but other places don't have that issue). Second, Utah is a little sensitive on equal protection right now. Personally, I think the homos should have all the rights the rest of us have and I agree with Judge Shelby's ruling on gay marriage. But, you hear a lot of people around here say "show me where the constitution says you can get gay married." This case, asserting a constitutional basis to a recreational activity for mostly a bunch of relatively wealthy people, can only strengthen this sentiment. There is a very logical distinction between marriage and snowboarding, but a lot of people won't get it and this suit will probably further the divisive sentiments on that front.
This, it'd just make Alta more crowded. Assuming conservatively that half of the ski/snowboard crowd in general are retarts, then there'd be a lot more of them clogging shit up.Quote:
Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd
From a crowds standpoint, maybe it would take some pressure off of Snowbird. Have at it.
Otherwise I don't really give a shit.
I don't mind pointing and laughing at the idiots traversing all the steep terrain thinking they're "riding" and sitting around all across the hill getting their asses wet. If they're clogging up the joint I just yell at them to stand still while I move through.