Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

http://www.ksl.com/?...e&s_cid=queue-1

SALT LAKE CITY — Snowboarders have wanted to "free" Alta for years.

On Wednesday, four of them and a group called Wasatch Equality dropped a federal lawsuit on the Little Cottonwood Canyon resort, challenging its longstanding skiers-only policy.

A lawyer for the snowboarders said that because of Alta Ski Area's arrangement with the U.S. Forest Service, it must comply with the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Forest Service is also named as defendant.

"Alta is one of only three ski resorts in the United States that does not allow snowboarding, and Alta is the only one of these resorts that is operated on public land controlled by the Forest Service," said Jonathan Schofield, an attorney with Parr Brown Gee and Loveless.

The ban excludes a "particular class of individuals from use and enjoyment of public land based on irrational discrimination against snowboarders," he said.

It pits those who stand sideways on a single "snowboard" against those who stand forward on "skis," creating hostility and divisiveness, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

Plaintiff Drew Hicken said there is no reason skiing and snowboarding can't coexist.

"We feel that it is time for Alta to let go of outdated prejudices that perpetuate a skier versus snowboarder mentality and allow everyone, regardless of whether they are skiers or snowboarders, to share the mountain together," he said.

An Alta spokeswoman said the resort wants to gather more information before commenting on the lawsuit.
One out-of-state skier coming off the mountain Wednesday says Alta is for skiers.

"It's the only place left. Give it to 'em. Snowboarders go anywhere else you want to go, but leave Alta for the skiers," Kevin Hurley said. "Where we live, we gotta deal with snowboarders, and we'd rather deal with skiers."

Snowboarders have a reputation, deserved or not, for riding reckless and without regard for others on the mountain.

Diane Harrington, who snowboards and skis, called the lawsuit a "good idea."

"I think it should be figured out in the courts. I think it's OK that Alta restricts use of the lift, but I don't think it's fair that they keep people off (U.S.) Forest Service property," she said. "Our taxes pay for it equally. It's almost like discrimination of sorts."

In 1986, Beaver Mountain, Brighton and Park West (now The Canyons) were the only Utah resorts that allowed snowboarders on their chairlifts. Since then, all but Alta and Deer Valley have followed suit. Mad River Glen in Vermont is the third American resort that doesn't permit snowboarding.

By 1990, most major ski areas around the country allowed snowboarding, which became one of the fastest-growing winter sports.

Alta has not always prohibited snowboarding, according to the lawsuit. It allowed snowboarders to ride its chairlifts in the early 1980s, and Hicken and another plaintiff Richard Varga were among some of the first snowboarders at Alta.

But by the mid '80s, Alta "summarily" decided it would no longer allow snowboarders to access its terrain or ride its lifts, the lawsuit says. The policy was borne of "animus" or hostility toward snowboarders.

Alta operates under a Forest Service permit that states the public lands "shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes," according to the lawsuit. The ski area covers 2,130 acres — 1,802 acres or 85 percent of which is on public land.

Contributing: Richard Piatt
This post has been edited by Skiing#1: 15 January 2014 - 07:16 PM

Can't the snowboarders just go to Snowbird? I'm wondering why they aren't suing Deer Valley while they're at it.

I believe that the Mad River Glen ban is enacted because boards are not compatible with their single chairlift.

Yeah, and couldn't Rosa Parks just sit in the back of the bus. Maybe a little hyperbolic but I believe that the snowboarders are correct. If Alta is operating on public land (national forest) then the forest service has a duty to prevent discrimination and provide for equal use. I think that limiting use between very different activities such as OHV vs hiking or horseback riding and providing different areas for those activities can be justified. Saying that an area of the National Forest is suitable for recreation use by skiers but not snowboarders has no justification.

But, if you are operating your a resort on private land then yes I believe the owner/operator does have the right to allow one or the other or both.

What sort of land is Deer Valley on?

Private.

Snowboards are perfectly compatible with Mad River's single chair, they just have the same attitude towards snowboarders that Alta does.

And therefore, as a resort that operates on private land, Deer Valley can choose whether or not to allow snowboards on their property.

If only most snowboarders knew how to load an older fixed grip lift without inducing excessive chair swing. Some know how, most do not. If only most snowboarders knew how not to drag all the snow on the unloading ramp from the top to the bottom. Could someone please let the snowboarders know that stomping your board in the loading area is pointless and annoying. Have you ever seen 2 snowboarders ride a T- Bar together?

Alta is one of the reasons I still maintain my skiing skills. Otherwise I am 80/20 snowboarding to skiing. I would definitely love to ride Alta if the ban were lifted but if not, I will still ski it. The two different sports work different muscles and being able to switch can rest one muscle group while working the other. The end result: increased endurance and ability to take longer ski trips (darn:-)). Acceptance of snowboarders has been a long battle through the years but is much of what keeps me riding. There has been plenty of blame to assign to both sides but I am pleased to say I finally feel more respected on the board than I did 20 years ago. I think many of us grew up also and changed the demographics of things which voided some of the stereotypes. Definitely a hot rivalry. Not sure if lawsuit is the answer but it will be interesting to see how far it goes. As I discovered in the 90's, ski areas which allow boards just to avoid missing out on the revenue from that segment but really do not want snowboarding at their resort and treat riders like crap after they take their money are not any more fun to go to than areas which do not allow them at all.

I believe the arrangement is that anyone who wants to can hike Alta because it's forest service land, but as the Alta Ski Lifts Company owns the lifts privately, they can refuse service to anyone, in the same way that a restaurant can say "no shirt, no shoes, no service." Is that right? Deer Valley is on private land, so they can do as they please. Summit County ordinance about not crossing marked closures and ski area boundaries is posted all over the border with Park City.

Both of the ski-only arrangements survive because they are right next to big resorts that allow snowboarding, so they don't lose much destination business from families with snowboarding members

Remember this from a few years ago? There are a couple videos of people trying to talk their way past DV lifties in response to Jake Burton's bounty on the three remaining ski-only resorts.
http://usatoday30.us...-poaching_N.htm

http://www.ksl.com/?...e&s_cid=queue-1

LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON — The snowboard versus skier rivalry heated up Thursday a day after a group of snowboarders filed a lawsuit against Alta saying their "no snowboarder" policy is discriminatory.

This suit has tapped into some old, simmering emotions. People can be pretty passionate about their right to slide down whatever mountain they like, however they like.

There are tinges of anger on a YouTube video where Alta skiers are reacting to the idea of snowboarders at the resort. One responder testily said boarders should just "go to Snowbird."

Social media was buzzing on the topic Thursday with comments like:

"Snowboarders can use Alta all they want to. They just have to use it while skiing."

"I've defended Alta's skier's only policy because I'm a skier. But I have to admit the snowboarders' argument has merit."

Getting the debate rolling is a part of the lawsuit, said Drew Hicken, one of the snowboarders suing Alta. He said his goal is to eliminate the rivalry between skiers and snowboarders.

"I don't see it even in Deer Valley, they don't harbor that animosity," Hicken said. "Alta for some reason — you know partly the management has created it &mdash and it exists there stronger than ever.

The lawsuit targets the fact that most of Alta is on Forest Service land and not privately owned land like the other resorts that don't allow boarders such as Deer Valley and Vermont's Mad River Glen.

Differences definitely exist, but there are those who can see both sides.

"For the most part, I think everybody gets along and just enjoys being outside," said skier Matt Dimock.

"I'd go if Alta was open to snowboarders, I'd go. But I'm not upset that it isn't because there's plenty of choices for us," said snowboarder Chris Bertram.

Again Thursday, Alta Ski Resort officials declined to respond to the lawsuit or to the animosity and rivalry that exist, partly due to the resort's own marketing campaign.

Contributing: Peter Samore

For me, I prefer skiers only, not with snowboarders. Alta is cheap than Deer Valley. I drive up to Alta...20 minutes.

If Alta start to allow snowboarders someday. I can't afford to go to Deer Valley. It is expensive. Same thing with Park City. Park City is more strict and control them than any ski resorts.

Before I say reasons, I could be wrong but my own perspective and my feelings than snowboarders know their own perspective and their feelings. I respect them who loves snowboarders. They respect skiers, too.

Three reasons:

1. Snowboarders can't quickly stop and delay to stop.

2. Some snowboarders hit skiers. (some hit me, yelled at me to watch out, and they don't realize I can't hear them. I am hearing impaired.) I haven't see any skiers hit snowboarders yet. True.





https://www.youtube....h?v=vvSzwGq0m5Y

3. Snowboard cut lines and leave bump lines on the slope. It causes skiing to skip, move away or little out of control.

At Alta or Deer Valley, I ski peace and happy. No one hit me.

It may be just me, but the first video seems to show that the downhill slider was the snowboarder.

Personally, I think the ban should stay and I'm not even an Altaholic. It's Alta culture, have you seen what happens when they come over from Bird? Also, boards are more destructive to the snow, which is a staple of Alta. The blind spot is a safety hazard. The High T would be full of footprints. Boards would only be able to access 2/3 of the mountain. Let's everybody do everybody a favor and boards go to Bird.

I too like Alta the way it is. It is nice to know there are one or two resorts out there that cater to a certain type of sport or people. It's not discrimination in any form in my opinion. If people want to go there they just need to put on skis. what's so hard about that?

Skiing and snowboarding are two completely different types of art. Snowboarding is all about balance and is basically a surfboard on snow. Skiing is also about balance, but in a different form.

Both videos show contact on the snow boarder's "blind side". The rider in the second video should have been able to avoid the collision.

I don't innately dislike snowboarders but few of them actually make any effort to check their blind spot or to not destroy your legs with their boards on the chair. If you are a boarder who does do this, I thank you.

SkiDaBird, on 25 January 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

That's why I always have to be a bit hesitant about passing snowboarders on their blind side (which is passing on the left if the are going down left foot forward or on the right if their right foot is forward). I think I had a collision on Peak 9 about four years ago where I was about to pass a snowboarder on his blind side and he turned right in front of me.

http://www.ksl.com/i...ot-snowboarders


The opinions included in this article are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of KSL.com.

SALT LAKE CITY — A lawsuit was recently filed by four men against Alta because the resort chooses to run its lifts, groom its slopes and open daily for skiers free of snowboarders.

The four men — Rick Alden, Drew Hicken, Richard Varga and Bjorn Leines — armed with snowboards, went to Alta to challenge the resort’s resolve. They knew what would happen. They were hoping to be turned away. And they wanted to fight it because Alta is built on public property and they thought it illegal that they were discriminated against as snowboarders.

But, the fact is Alta is open to snowboarders. They’re welcome to hike the slopes before the resort opens and after it closes. But the snowboarders in the suit want Alta to make their life easier by hauling them up the mountain. Lifts that skiers paid for.

Alta pays all of its operating, maintenance and staffing expenses with money paid to them by skiers who have purchased passes over the past 75 years.

The lawsuit says that there is no rational reason for banning snowboarding on Alta’s slopes. It says that “The only difference between (skiing and snowboarding) is the orientation of a person’s feet on the skis or board.’’

However, that is not entirely true. Snowboarders have a “blind spot.’’ Skiers face forward and have good peripheral vision. Snowboarders face to the side and don’t have eyes in the back of their heads. Most of the skiers I know have had collisions or near collisions with snowboarders. I myself, have been knocked down twice by snowboarders traveling across a slope, only to get the departing excuse, “Sorry, I didn’t see you.’’

More times I’ve had to check my speed or turn out of the fall-line to avoid a boarder. I’m much more vigilant when I ski where snowboarders are present because it is more dangerous.

So do I or other skiers hate snowboarders? Not at all. I can lay claim to introducing roughly 4,000 new snowboarders to the winter sport here in Utah. For roughly 40 years I represented the Deseret News as a ski/snowboard editor and writer, and in that capacity I was responsible for the Deseret News/KSL Ski and Snowboard School. In 1999, I introduced the idea of adding snowboard instruction to the then 53-year-old ski school program at Alta.

In 2000, I negotiated with Snowbird to teach snowboarders and in less than a week of opening registration, there were 400-plus snowboarders registered for the first class. Snowbird agreed to teach all 500 and the Deseret News agreed to pay the extra fees.

I represented the Deseret News interest in skiing and snowboarding until 2010 when it was decided — after 63 years teaching skiing and 11 years teaching snowboarding — it was time for me to retire.

I have snowboarded, but prefer skiing. I’ve written about, tried, watched, covered, have children that snowboard and introduced snowboarding to a lot of Utahns.

Do I think snowboarders have a place in the winter schedule? Yes. There are 12 world class areas in Utah that welcome snowboarders and with cooperative passes added this year by resorts, there are another dozen or so in neighboring states. But, do I believe skiers should have a place free from the worry of snowboarders? Yes. And there are only two — Alta and Deer Valley.

The lawsuit references that Alta's ban on snowboarding “hurts Utah tourism” and “family values.’’ Go to Alta or Deer Valley and ask how many “tourists’’ are there because there are no snowboarders. The reference to family values, I’m afraid, is a real stretch because if my kids or grandkids want to snowboard and I want to ski, I go to resorts that allow both. Simple.

There are more than 350 ski areas in the United States open to snowboarders with only three that aren’t, including Mad River Glen in Vermont. It’s not like snowboarders don’t have slopes to board.

As for me, if there was a resort closed to skiers here in Utah, I’d wish it and snowboarders well.

Skiing#1, on 16 January 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

I'm curious as to how Park City controls snowboarders? In my past visits there I've never been restricted about where/when/how I could ride the mountain.

On another note, this past Sunday as I was waiting to drop into the halfpipe, while facing the halfpipe and standing still, I was hit from behind by a skier. Now granted, he was a parkrat, but a skier none the less who hit me on my backside. So it isn't just snowboarders who cause collisions, it is also skiers. Having never hit a skier myself, I came real close to hitting one on Sunday with my fists but fortunately for the parkrat ski patrol was very close and took care of the situation.