Alta is for Nazis

[yabyum]

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

Did I mention Alta skied VERY well today? Nice little graupel blizzard

[bigdude2468]

Did I mention Alta skied VERY well today? Nice little graupel blizzard

yes it did.

BTW, plenty of public / muni golf courses have dress codes,. If you show up at Bethpage run by the State of NY they will not let you play if you don't have a collar on your shirt. Isn't that discrimination? Us rednecks never wear shirts with collars and we wear cut off jeans also not allowed.

[DasBlunt]

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.

You are absolutely right.

I think the main point, is the point; that they ban snowboarders. Skiers would/will get that mountain back quick once people realize how annoying it is to ride there.


All these silly answers about dress code and business decisions forget one main point: public land. They would not exist without the land. And the lease is not like renting out that Dildo shop My Pet Powder Goat uses down by the river.

Private, public golf courses have dress codes, sure, but that has nothing to do with accepted use ( golfing, retards?).

[Bromontana]

One of the more important points is the degree of freedom the lease provides to Alta, the degree of ownership-probably a better way to put it.

A lease of 1,800 acres of high use public forest land is very different to a lease of a private residence. But what are those differences and how far do they go to protect the rights of the public to use the land within USFS guidance?

Journalists citing the lease have long noted that the lease conveys the right to limit equipment for safety concerns, but that legal use of the property is not within Alta's control.

So from a lease and property rights perspective I don't see a traceable link between the rights granted and the rights currently being exercised. Will look for the lease

[Kinnikinnick]

^^You two are hilarious. You'd lose to a box of rocks in an intelligence test, but are certain that you have it all figured out.

Bromont - I love that you think you are qualified to pontificate on the limits of a forest land lease, but keep arguing the opposite of what your own JD told you.

Keep up the drivel filled posts - and your optimism about the grand fight for your "rights" - it sure is entertaining!!

[Kenny Satch]

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.

Get your facts straight
I almost hit the boarder with my ski pole at a resort that doesn't allow snowboards

[Bromontana]

^^You two are hilarious. You'd lose to a box of rocks in an intelligence test, but are certain that you have it all figured out.

Bromont - I love that you think you are qualified to pontificate on the limits of a forest land lease, but keep arguing the opposite of what your own JD told you.

Keep up the drivel filled posts - and your optimism about the grand fight for your "rights" - it sure is entertaining!!

You may not be as sharp as you think. In your neck of the woods the USFS agreed with WE's "optimistic" view of rights and wording in the lease was what ultimately led the USFS to back down from forcing ASC to drop the ban. But the govt agency adminstering the lease agreed in principle that USFS ski-lease land should be accessible by snowboarders. Why you're so dismissive of that position I'm not sure, care to explain?

Utah's snowboarders aren't as fortunate since the local USFS rep seems to lack the respect for equality demonstrated by their counterparts in CO. Regardless, without knowing the language of the two leases it's inappropriate to assume the same enforcement limitation applies to Alta, particularly given the commonly cited portion(s) of the lease.

It may be that lobbying the USFS is the only way to get change. If this case fails then that'll be the most likely next step.

Opponents of the ban filed a grievance with the U.S. Forest Service when Skico wouldn’t budge. Officials in the Aspen Ranger District agreed that the ban was discriminatory, and they told Skico officials they would force them to change it, Norton recalled. The Forest Service went public with its position before discussing it with Skico brass, he said, so relations were strained.

When a meeting was finally held, Skico officials insisted that the permit to operate on public land allows the ski area to prohibit uses such as snow bikes, sledding and multiple other uses on the maintained slopes.

“We said, ‘Our lease with you allows us to discriminate,’” Norton said.

The Forest Service agreed and backed off its vow to force Skico to open Aspen Mountain to snowboarding.
http://www.aspentimes.com/news/97968...ban-skico-alta

[Kinnikinnick]

In your neck of the woods the USFS agreed with WE's "optimistic" view of rights and wording in the lease was what ultimately led the USFS to back down from forcing ASC to drop the ban.

You're arguing against yourself without even seeming to understand. The USFS ultimately agreed that the lease (likely the same or very similar to Alta's since its a USFS lease) permitted Aspen to decide which uses to allow. At Alta the USFS appears to have learned its lesson and is siding with Alta.

You're not citing any evidence to support your hopes, rather you keep doing the contrary.

[Bromontana]

You're arguing against yourself without even seeming to understand. The USFS ultimately agreed that the lease (likely the same or very similar to Alta's since its a USFS lease) permitted Aspen to decide which uses to allow. At Alta the USFS appears to have learned its lesson and is siding with Alta.

You're not citing any evidence to support your hopes, rather you keep doing the contrary.

It does seem like they're very similar. There's more good insight here:

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/great-alta-debate/

Given what happened with Aspen and Alta lease wording, is it accurate to say that discrimination like Alta's is fine provided the USFS inks off on it?

Another angle is the rationale for the restriction. Alta is allowed to restrict downhill transport for safety concerns, yet there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure their discrimination is rational? That high degree of deference is what my brother ultimately said would make the case fail. Understood, but what is the point of writing a lease with a safety caveat for downhill restriction if there's absolutely zero review of the "facts" that Alta uses to justify exclusion of a large, legal-use group?

It seems like the letter of the law is with Wasatch Equality and lethargy within the courts and USFS allow Alta to slip through. That is frustrating.

[Kinnikinnick]

Keep banging your head against the wall. Maybe you can talk reality into changing itself to fit your desires.

[Snow Ranger]

yes it did.

BTW, plenty of public / muni golf courses have dress codes,. If you show up at Bethpage run by the State of NY they will not let you play if you don't have a collar on your shirt. Isn't that discrimination? Us rednecks never wear shirts with collars and we wear cut off jeans also not allowed.

would they let you golf there using a baseball bat?

[tuco]

Get your facts straight
I almost hit the boarder with my ski pole at a resort that doesn't allow snowboards

Got it.
That post was so jumbled, I couldn't tell what the fuck you were trying to say.


Hate to say it, but I think ONE Wasatch is gonna happen and I seriously doubt not allowing snowboarding is part of that vision.

[bigdude2468]

I think the Snowboard issue at DV and Alta are way down the list of issues to clear up before One Wasatch happens. I still do not understand how or why the PC resorts would agree to a plan that takes their lodging customers and hijacks them to two separate canyons that have a fraction of the rooms. If by chance Tailisker prevails and has both The Canyons and PCMR the Epic pass works because you tie up customers and ring every $ they can out of lodging, ski school, food and trinkets. With a fraction of the customers in BCC / LCC compared to PC Vail sees their revenue fleeing to BCC and LCC not the other way around. Somebody has to show me how many lifts and how long is it going to take to get to the various other resorts, ala DV to Snowbird and back the other way.

[Kenny Satch]

Got it.
That post was so jumbled, I couldn't tell what the fuck you were trying to say.


Hate to say it, but I think ONE Wasatch is gonna happen and I seriously doubt not allowing snowboarding is part of that vision.

thanks and sorry for my jumbled beer enduced explanations

btw the ONE Wasatch will be ONE Big Ouch-Satch for me

[stuckathuntermtn]

wait.......


































hang on!






























nope. Still no one cares that you can't snowboard Alta.

[getoutside]

Still no one cares that you can't snowboard Alta.

oh but we can dumbass : ) ....opening day is may 5

[Kenny Satch]

Source Powder.com

And, of course, how does snowboarding fit in to the plan since Deer Valley and Alta still do not allow single-stick shredders? While Deer Valley G.M. Bob Wheaton said Deer Valley would not allow snowboarding in the foreseeable future, Onno Wieringa of Alta left the door open. “As the plan gets more refined, [Alta’s snowboarding policy] will be one of the things that gets addressed,” Wieringa said. Deer Valley would not be necessary to complete the circuit, while Alta would.

Alta might be the Hero in preventing this cluster fuck resort idea.
One Resort to screw them all
keeping out the Orcs and Uruk Hai is a noble cause of which legends are made

long live the Fellowship of the Skiers

[baron]

Brighton is easier link than Alta; Alta dosen't need to allow boarders for link.they'll just put up 15-30 min shuttles or smthin from Bri to Brd.Alta dosen't need to be a monkey middle run, in the possable link.

[stuckathuntermtn]

oh but we can dumbass : ) ....opening day is may 5

Touche!
...

[claymond]

I would very happily continue to not be allowed to board at Alta if it prevents ONE wasatch from happening.

[tuco]

Brighton is easier link than Alta; Alta dosen't need to allow boarders for link.they'll just put up 15-30 min shuttles or smthin from Bri to Brd.Alta dosen't need to be a monkey middle run, in the possable link.

Alta's lift up Grizzly Gulch has already been approved if I'm not mistaken.

[tuco]

I think the Snowboard issue at DV and Alta are way down the list of issues to clear up before One Wasatch happens.

Might be, but this thread is about snowboarding Alta.
DV doesn't matter in the ONE Wasatch equation as far a snowboarders are concerned. Alta, now that's a different story.

[Kinnikinnick]

Occurs to me that the lawsuit could set the precedent that would allow them to effectively ban snowboarders from the entire One Wasatch deal.

[tuco]

^^^
Yeah...........
that makes no sense.

[creaky fossil]

Occurs to me that the lawsuit could set the precedent that would allow them to effectively ban snowboarders from the entire One Wasatch deal.

"could" being the operative word there

rather than "precedent"

unlike what TV legal shows suggest, "precedent" is not some magical power that attaches to a lawsuit