Alta is for Nazis

[digitaldeath]

would a loophole be splitboard? ski up to lift, ride it and snowboard down

[Bromontana]

the old skiers who hate snowboarders need to get old and die soon so there is a positive change. Until then, first world problems.

pretty much, good old fashioned yawner.

would a loophole be splitboard? ski up to lift, ride it and snowboard down

it's kind of like gay marriage. At alta, marriage between man and snow must go via two sticks and not one. One is bad, and not good for the land, its people, or the religion. Splitters like me aint welcome. It's a blessing on many days though as LCC gets the traffic and greybird while BCC is more open, more easily accessible land etc.

[Elkhound Odin]

Monoboards

[babybear]

Monoboards

Haha excellent
But seriously do they allow monoskiers??

And fwiw I always figured the anti snowboard thing would die out as the people that feel threatened by them die out
But does stink to have to potentially wait that out

[babybear]

I have also snowboarded at mad river glen
I think that ups my rep at least 0.25%

[digitaldeath]

skifishbum and i saw tele mono boarder at alta, i believe there are pics in the wasatch thread

[babybear]

Wow a tele monoski

I hope it was some type of gaper day thing

[boarddad]

See, that's what you don't seem to get. The lifts are private property, along with the other facilities. Technically they can't keep you off the public land but they don't have to let anyone ride the lifts. Aren't the bottoms of some lifts at Alta on private property too? I don't care if snowboards ride Alta or not but the lifts are private and they hold a lease. Alta isn't preventing snowboarders from accessing public lands, they're saying that snowboarders can't ride THEIR lifts.

This is where their arguement falls apart too though. They aren't selling skiing any more than they are offering snowboarding. They are selling rides up the mountain and maintained runs - nothing else. You are sitting on your butt while you are riding a lift, not skiing or snowboarding. It's what you do when you get to the top of the lift that they are prohibiting and THAT is done entirely on leased USFS land.

"So what?" You say? Just ask the folks on the other side of the hill what your lift rides are worth without that permit. All of the other USFS permits allow snowboarding. It is a weak arguement that Alta should be allowed to restrict that use with theirs.

[Kinnikinnick]

Just because they are a business that does not have it in their business plan to serve one kind of recreational device and not another does not mean that they get to decide.

Even though I don't snowboarder hope the suit wins, because its bullshit that I can't bring my red plastic saucer up to Prima Cornice and if they win then I can bring whatever device I choose to any national forest lessee and they have to let me in.

[skifishbum]

craig kelly was an uber stud and the 420cats bro still is
shane was the motherfuckin man
and in the big picture aint even in the book that bears rosa parks name let alone page
get a fuckin clue jong
snowlerblades, tourons adorned w/ starter jackets and jeans, extreme side country families, minnasodian misfits, even the most revered and most holy gsa
every day at the a l t a gots some gaper to it





#xoveraltabonicsemojistyle
:

[Bromontana]

from the Alta special use permit with the USFS. Whatever the acting USFS leader says is law, effectively. Everything else is irrelevant. Any change needs to go through the USFS, and not the courts. They own the decision and have a peculiar patchwork of rationale that consistently excludes the whole "non-competing use" spirit of equipment regulation. That is, 1 & 2 planks aren't competitors but perfectly ok to mix and share same space. If you don't have a safety concern you need explicit agreement from the USFS to impose a restriction on use.

Saucers, snowmobiles and shitty logic don't meet this criteria, but one plank does. If you want a copy of the permit I can email or send a telegram.




fyi - very boring day. Any time you end up reading a special use permit for a ski area, you're probably better off going home and hitting the grass.... time for me to go!

[east or bust]

Hey, I skied Alta once

[Kinnikinnick]

Are you saying that Alta has closed National Forest Lands to snowboarders?

from the Alta special use permit with the USFS. Whatever the acting USFS leader says is law, effectively. Everything else is irrelevant. Any change needs to go through the USFS, and not the courts. They own the decision and have a peculiar patchwork of rationale that consistently excludes the whole "non-competing use" spirit of equipment regulation. That is, 1 & 2 planks aren't competitors but perfectly ok to mix and share same space.

Saucers, snowmobiles and shitty logic don't meet this criteria, but one plank does. If you want a copy of the permit I can email or send a telegram.




fyi - very boring day. Any time you end up reading a special use permit for a ski area, you're probably better off going home and hitting the grass.... time for me to go!

[Bromontana]

Are you saying that Alta has closed National Forest Lands to snowboarders?

Do you consider calling police for trespassing an effective 'closure of USFS land' to a legal and compatible use of non-exclusively leased land? That's what has happened several times in the past. The reactions are variable, but the general policy at alta is to issue GTFO warnings to knuckledraggers and splitters on sight.

[Kinnikinnick]

Do you consider calling police for trespassing an effective 'closure of USFS land' to a legal and compatible use of non-exclusively leased land? That's what has happened several times in the past. The reactions are variable, but the general policy at alta is to issue GTFO warnings to knuckledraggers and splitters on sight.

If you hike up under your own power on a route that allows access to hikers, snowshoers, uphillskiers, etc. and you descend without entering any area that is closed to such uses and then they call the cops, then yes...

But if you're just coming in from Snowbird against the posted rules and/or trying to get on the lifts, then no...

[mall walker]

If you hike up under your own power on a route that allows access to hikers, snowshoers, uphillskiers, etc. and you descend without entering any area that is closed to such uses and then they call the cops, then yes...

Like many resorts, Alta is closed to uphill traffic during the operating season.

[Bromontana]

If you hike up under your own power on a route that allows access to hikers, snowshoers, uphillskiers, etc. and then they call the cops, then yes...
But if you're just trying to make a scene getting on the lifts, then no..

So if you use a hypothetical corner case you can potentially fool a dullard into believing the inaccurate representation that ingress/egress in downhill and uphill areas of Alta are open to snowboarders. So there's that. Meanwhile public access is effectively denied day after day and all but eliminates use of the area by a legal and compatible user group. In summary, an exclusive operation operating on a nonexclusive permit.

It's not an issue of if the ban is legal or not, because the permit itself is clear on how it can be legal or illegal. Its legality is 100% subject to the whims of the USFS middle management. If the USFS lead changes tomorrow and rejects the next season's operating plan on the basis of unfounded access restriction, Alta will have itself in an awkward spot legally. And just like that the dickwads on one side will eat their words and those on the other will take the baton of cacophonous, snark-laden blathering about how right and smart and betterer they are.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

So if you use a hypothetical corner case you can potentially fool a dullard into believing the inaccurate representation that ingress/egress in downhill and uphill areas of Alta are open to snowboarders. So there's that. Meanwhile public access is effectively denied day after day and all but eliminates use of the area by a legal and compatible user group. In summary, an exclusive operation operating on a nonexclusive permit.

It's not an issue of if the ban is legal or not, because the permit itself is clear on how it can be legal or illegal. Its legality is 100% subject to the whims of the USFS middle management. If the USFS lead changes tomorrow and rejects the next season's operating plan on the basis of unfounded access restriction, Alta will have itself in an awkward spot legally. And just like that the dickwads on one side will eat their words and those on the other will take the baton of cacophonous, snark-laden blathering about how right and smart and betterer they are.

What you say is true, but if Alta were to be forced to allow splitters and snowboarders to recreate in the permit area they could still deny access to THEIR lifts. I'm not saying it's fair, it's really pretty silly, but it could turn out that way.

If Alta said go ahead and skin up on your split and/ or ski down from the bird anytime the hill isn't closed for uphill traffic or control work but you still can't use OUR lifts, what would be your argument then?

[Bromontana]

What you say is true, but if Alta were to be forced to allow splitters and snowboarders to recreate in the permit area they could still deny access to THEIR lifts. I'm not saying it's fair, it's really pretty silly, but it could turn out that way.

If Alta said go ahead and skin up on your split and/ or ski down from the bird anytime the hill isn't closed for uphill traffic or control work but you still can't use OUR lifts, what would be your argument then?

Maybe a lawyer could chime in on the application of the non-exclusive use to real property like a lift. My understanding is that restrictions to accessing operations are bound by reasonable person standard on matters of safety and the integrity of the operation. To that extent, it's a specious argument to say that snowboards in any way endanger their operational well being. Having your core business of extremist pricks die up isn't an excuse for imposing a blanket restriction on equipment accepted in every other public-land ski area in the country.

But this agreement between Alta and the USFS on excluding snowboards, plus one other parameter outlined in the lawsuit, are imo the salient points that define whether or not the ban is legal and sustainable long term.

[GeezerSteve]

Maybe a lawyer could chime in on the application of the non-exclusive use to real property like a lift. My understanding is that restrictions to accessing operations are bound by reasonable person standard on matters of safety and the integrity of the operation.

No thanks, other than to say that the objective reasonable man standard would not apply to the interpretation of a USFS SUP. AFAICT, the lawsuit was premised on allegations of a civil rights violation, not re an interpretation of the SUP. The latter would start with an admin action to the USFS, which would be given broad deference via principles of primary jurisdiction.

[Bromontana]

No thanks, other than to say that the objective reasonable man standard would not apply to the interpretation of a USFS SUP. AFAICT, the lawsuit was premised on allegations of a civil rights violation, not re an interpretation of the SUP. The latter would start with an admin action to the USFS, which would be given broad deference via principles of primary jurisdiction.

Nice - more or less affirming it's an issue/decision for the USFS. The complaint's seriousness doesn't rise to the level of warranting court action - yet. If all USFS based resorts banned snowboarding indefinitely on grounds of aesthetics (like alta), then industry would lobby and elevate the level of importance so that court action could be pressured. But even then, there's no clear legal path for snowboarding. It just reverts to the USFS discretion on SUP approval and management. Unless a judge decides to play liberal and start making new rules.

[Bunion 2020]

Way back off topic. When I patrolled in Utah we called the locals the Powder Nazis.

Some of them may have skied at Alta so, there ya go.

I think this entire thing is silly, but it does appear to me that if the Knuckledraggers prevail then it opens the way for Mtn Bikers to sue for equal protection to pursue our right to access areas that have been closed to us.

[Bobcat Sig]

I think this entire thing is silly, but it does appear to me that if the Knuckledraggers prevail then it opens the way for Mtn Bikers to sue for equal protection to pursue our right to access areas that have been closed to us.

Fuck yes, please.

[Hanskrajc]

I don't get all this shit and why peps can't board there. So freakin whatever

[daver]

Unbelievable I know, but look at what I found in my Clif Bar today: