Alta is for Nazis

[stuckathuntermtn]

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

I thought that was called Mountain Creek.

[Bromontana]

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.

[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

[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

[misfit toy]

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

[EvilBlackBaby]

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

[GPP33]

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.

[thebirdhunter]

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

I thought that was called Mountain Creek.

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

[tuco]

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.

[smitchell333]

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?

[tuco]

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?

[smitchell333]

Money talks, bullshit walks.

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

[tuco]

No lack of customers=Money talking

[nc_slater]

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

[Bromontana]

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.

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.

[smitchell333]

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."

[baron]

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.

[Bromontana]

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.

[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.

[Hugh Conway]

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%?

[smitchell333]

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.

[DasBlunt]

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…..

[the_kid]

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

[Skidog]

PGA
Restaurant
private business.

Alta lifts. Private business. Pretty simple.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using TGR Forums

[Steezus Christ]

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.