I'm a responsible snowboarder and not a hooligan.I think they should let
snowboarders snowboard because it's public land and everybody should be
able to ski and snowboard there.I think skiers only resorts shouldn't be
allowed in america because it's not fair.Thats all I have to say for the
Lol, I love it JoeCapitalist. Let's stand up to hate!
Skied for a lot of years and convinced that snowboarding's growth in the
last 20 years saved the ski industry and many resorts from bankruptcy. My ONLY
complaint is that snowboards track up the POW much faster than skiers. And since
Alta is one of the few POW paradises, it's considered sacrilegious to waste
There is nothing I hate more than being on the interstate surrounded by big
rigs. Perhaps I should sue the trucking industry.
It's a slippery slope. Look at Colorado.First it's boarders,
then it's marijuana.
Being a skier, long before snowboards came along, I can tell you for sure they
ruin the experience. On a flat out run, there is no difference, except they
can't go straight down hill well. But, I used to love the trees and jumps
along the way. Snowboarders cant use them the same way. They love that dip in
the jump to put them in the air, skiers want a little launch.There are
what, 10 other ski resorts within a radius of 5 miles of Alta. Let's leave
one place unblemished.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did just read the ruling on the lawsuit on gay
marriage which was based on the same (14th) amendment. It appears that in an
"equal protection" case, the judge will have to decide how strictly to
scrutinize the law based on how sensitive the affected class is... but
snowboarding probably has little to no precedence in law, so the judge will
probably decide on low scrutiny. Benefit-of-the-doubt calls go to the non-moving
party (Alta). My prediction is that because of this Alta will win.
I'd just like to point out that the sarcastic comments reflect not only the
outrageous irrationality of these demands, but of the demands on that "other
issue" also. Status and privilege and personal liberty are not the same
thing. We already are a free country, it's the people who don't
understand right from wrong who want to turn things upside down.
I ski and snowboard. As a skier, I love that Alta is skiers only. When I want to
board there are plenty of resorts for me to choose from. Alta has some great
terrain, but so does Snowbird and Snowbird has a terrain park for boarders. As
someone who participates in both, I have no problem with Alta being skier only.
JoeCapitalist2, I am going to be laughing for days. That was great.
This is ridiculous. I'm a snowboarder, but if I want to go to Alta,
I'll take a pair of ski's and learn. There is no discrimination
against individuals, just restrictions on equipment. This is a waste of the
court's time, and encouragement to find new and stupider ways of suing.Next we'll hear about ice skaters suing roller rinks because they
aren't allowed either.
I don't snowboard and I don't ski. But I do watch with amusement the
antics of people AND lawyers who trash our legal system with ridiculous
lawsuits. A proper lawsuit would be if Alta counter-sues these
misguided people (and their lawyers) to recover their damages from this
lawsuit.Another solution---Alta policy and signs that says 'NO
SNOWBOARDS ALLOWED ON LIFTS". Snowboarders are welcome to use the federal
leased land but they have to walk to the top.
Go snowboard somewhere else!I have no grasp of people demanding to be
accepted somewhere that they aren't welcome.It is 2 very
different cultures, and there is no need to spread that attitude to Alta.Step off!
Being neither a skier nor a snowboarder, I have no side to take here. That
said, the basis of the lawsuit seems extremely weak. The lawyer representing
the snowboarders says The ban excludes a "particular class of individuals
from use and enjoyment of public land based on irrational discrimination against
snowboarders,". This is extremely inaccurate. In reality, Alta excludes
numerous classes of individuals from use and enjoyment of the slopes.In addition to snowboarders, tobaggans, sleds and inner tubes are all
excluded. So are snowmobiles and four wheelers. Never having been skiing or
snowboarding, I have to ask, would a ski resort allow snow shoes on the slopes?
What about a group of hikers, wanting to simply walk down the slope?It is unfortunate that we live in a society where the expense of a court
battle may be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how this plays
The last time I skied at Alta was probably 24 years ago. And I seem to remember
a lot of flat areas that would make it difficult to snowboard around. I've
been snowboarding for over twenty years after I switched from skiing and
didn't look back, and it always has been kind of a "skiers vs.
snowboarders" attitude on the mountain. I say let Alta stay skiers only! Who
cares...Snowbird, and Brighton are really fun anyways. Hiking back country
boarding is way better than resorts anyways. It's free, it's always
fresh powder, it's not tracked out, it's not over crowded, and you get
good exercise. But there always is the danger of avalanches. I for
one hope Alta wins this to keep it skiers only. How lame people!!
Alta, as a private business, should have the right to decide which customers
they want (snowboarders or skiers or both). If they only want skiers, that is
their choice. The type of sport you play is not protected by the 14th amendment.
If the snowboarders win, this could really open up a can of worms, as people
will be suing for the right to do ______ at ________ all over the place. What a
I'm glad at least a few people appreciated my sarcasm.Actually,
I love to ski too, so I guess that I am a "Bi-downhiller". I am just
fine with Alta or any other resort deciding that they will cater exclusively to
skiers. I would also be fine if Brighton decided that it would become a
"boarders-only" resort.The idea that goverment laws and
regulations or lawsuits should be used to force everyone else to cater to my
personal preferences using phrases like "equal rights" or "equal
protection" is just plain wrong.
PS. If you want "snow that hasn't been destroyed by snowboarders"
use your legs and earn them or hire a helicopter. What makes you think you have
any more right to the good snow than anyone else?
These comments from skiers are ridiculous. I've done both for many years
but prefer snowboarding. Snowboarders don't ruin the terrain or snow,
novices do...of either kind. And there are out of control, dangerous, and
obnoxious types in both breeds. A lot of families have people who do both.
I'm sure Alta misses out on business because of their snobby policy. And
some people go there just because of it. "Alta is for Skiers!" If
that's the attitude of the skiers who are there. Let them keep it...keep
them away from the other quality resorts in the area.
Hate our lawsuit happy society, seems like we often confuse wants, needs, rights
Equal protection does not mean everyone gets to do what they want to do, how
they want to do it. It means that everyone who shows up with a pair of skis and
a valid lift pass may ski, regardless of race, gender, etc. You cannot drive a
motorized vehicle on some trials, you may not use a motor boat on some
lakes/reservoirs, and you MAY NOT use snow boards at Alta. Keep Alta free of
the plague of snowboards. They destroy the groomed trails by scraping the snow
off the mountain, are a health hazard to themselves and others, and can enjoy
their craft in multiple venues across the Wasatch Front.This is not
about the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause applies to race,
gender, etc., not to your mode of transport.
There are tremendous advantages to having "ski only" environments and
they are common in many resorts throughout the world. Alta has decided that
their business model is to focus on this type of skiing and they do it VERY well
(arguably the best skiing experience anywhere on earth). I had season passes
years ago to both Snowbird and Alta and would pick them for different reasons -
although the terrain and snow are extremely similar, there IS a difference when
you're competing with snowboarders on the mountain and how it affects
moguls, style, what you need to watch for, etc. To the plaintiffs in this case,
please re-consider. Although I doubt you'll be successful, you're
attempting to destroy a cultural environment that is unique and turn it into any
Make a snowboarders only place and I will not go there and better yet I promise
not to sue. Keep Alta, Alta. Get over it PLEASE or put on some skis. Why is it everyone wants to go where they can not. Not like Alta is the
ONLY place in town. If you want Chicken do not go to IN and Out. Are we going
to sue them because they do not serve Chicken? Same logic. Keep
Alta as is.
I have always looked at municipal golf courses and wished I could ride my dirt
bike on them. They are city owned and I am not a golfer. Old Mill is close to my
house and offers a swell assortment of step-up and step-down opportunities for
those eager to roost. I wouldn't mind chipping a two stroke out of any of
their bunkers. So lets do that, and then on the way home we can swing into the
Cotton Bottom and demand they serve us mexican food.
Before snowboards were invented, ski runs were covered in moguls. Young people
have never seen that. Today, just try to find a good mogul run at Snowbird,
Sundance, Targhee, or Jackson!Snowboards have ruined the snow for
skiers. That's why Alta does not and should not allow them.
The resort has a right to cater to their own clientele. However, if they win, it
will set a precedence. I can't wait to ride my dirt bike on all the hiking
I want to use my inner tube on Alta's beautiful runs. What is the
lawyer's phone number?
Alta doesn't ban a class of individuals. It bans a particular activity.
This is a laughable lawsuit designed to generate fees and publicity for the law
firm, as usual.Too many lawyers with nothing productive to do.
We should start up a "Defend Alta Fund" This is ridiculous.It's not discrimination, it's preserving the best skiing possible.
How many times have the moguls been decapitated by snowboarders? A LOT.
This is what comes of fiddling too much with the previously deferential
"rational basis" standard. It doesn't matter whether
snowboarders are a "protected class." The rational-basis standard
doesn't even bother with that. The new conventional wisdom is that
virtually *every* instance of disparate government treatment, even of slightly
different situations, is invidious discrimination. If you believe
the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage to erase the distinction
between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, then you must also believe it requires
that the even less significant difference between snowboarding and skiing be
Re: cavetroll"There are a few answers to this lawsuit. First, use the
land, but don't allow boarders to use the lifts. Those are private
property. "- This is already the case"A second option would
be to open some runs to boarders and some runs to skiers. Put in stipulations
(the small print) that clearly states where skiers can ski and boarders can
board."- Boarders can board at Alta if there are no uphill restrictions
and/or if the area is open (i.e. Alta is not prepping the area or conducting
avalanche mitigation work). Access to Baldy is easier from the Bird
via HBT than Alta, and as such boarding in Alta is quite easy. When
people say, "Alta is for skiers," all they are really saying is that
Alta's lifts are for skiers. I have very limited legal perspective, but it
does seem (already mentioned) that limiting access to public lands is up to the
Forest Service laws, while access to Alta's privately owned lifts could
(should???) be up to them. The slippery slope argument of where the line can be
drawn with snow bikes, sleds, etc... going down Alta during hours is
Whether or not to allow snowboarders at Alta has turned into a literal and
figurative "slippery slope" argument.
I'm not prejudiced against snowboarders...some of my best friends are
snowboarders (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Re:1Observer"Alta is a private company and should have the right to
restrict activities on their property whether leased or not." I agree with
you , except for the clause in the lease that clearly states Alta will allow the
public lands leased to remain open to all users engaged in lawful activity. There are a few answers to this lawsuit. First, use the land, but
don't allow boarders to use the lifts. Those are private property. Also
hold any person causing damage to private property or behaving in an unsafe
manner completely accountable. A second option would be to open some
runs to boarders and some runs to skiers. Put in stipulations (the small print)
that clearly states where skiers can ski and boarders can board.
I like to ride toboggans. Shall I sue to be allowed to ride my sleds at
Brighton and Solitude?
It would be appropriate for the suit to be filed on April 1st.
If being on public land means Alta has to allow anyone to use the land anyway
they want, then how can they keep snow mobiles and sleds off the slopes, as
well? And how is the Forest Service allowed to make any restrictions on use of
public land? First, snow boarders are not a protected class as defined by law.
Second, people who snow board have exactly the same right as anyone else who
visits Alta ... they can ski there. This is the dumbest lawsuit ever.
As a skier and snowboarder (alpine boarding background), I completely agree
about the mentality of many in the snowboarding community.... although some of
that seems to be rubbing off on the ski culture :;. I obviously elected to
board (kudos to JoeCapitalist2), so I do not know whether this case will hold
any water. However, arguments that Alta is a skier's mountain due to
lengthy traverses, large flat spots, etc....clearly not true. Look at the flat
spots at what is arguably the Wasatch's boarder mt- Brighton. Look at the
traverses at nearly all other resorts. If I am on my board at the Bird, I
simply do not attempt to go to the Bookends. Arguments that boarders
"scrape the snow off" are difficult to believe seeing that days after a
dump there is untouched powder at nearly every resort in the Wasatch except Alta
(and the Bird) largely due to the ability level and number of skier(s)/riders at
these resorts. Ironically, I do find myself boarding Alta as there is nothing
keeping me from boarding Baldy's chutes, shoulder, and really anything in
Alta from the Bird or hiking. Don't like it, just hike it!
Is everybody a victim of discrimination?
By the same logic, golf courses discriminate against people who want to ride
ATVs. Alta provides a unique and much desired experience. Snowbird, next
door, offers the same snow conditions and allows snowboarding. I've skied
for 50 years and been hit a couple of times by by reckless snowboarders. I
appreciate a place to go without that threat. If Alta can support a no
snowboarding business model, why not?
This provision in the lease likely forces the end of a skier only Alta
experience. Sad to see it go. (From the article) Alta operates under a Forest
Service permit that states the public lands "shall remain open to the public
for all lawful purposes . . . ."Possibly Alta could put policies
in place which forbid snow boarders from using *any* of its equipment/facilities
(including lodges, lifts, and parking areas) or boarding on any areas of the
resort which it actually owns. Then if it imposed a for people walking up
slopes (because it degrades the surface) the unique skiers only experience could
be mostly maintained. Snow boards absolute change the character of
a resort as the board (by definition) flattens large areas of snow on ever pass.
There are jerks on both sides. Boarders ruin moguls, skiers make moguls. Alta
should be able to do what they want. If you want a boarders only resort, go
make one yourself.
I have family members who snowboard, I respect them, I respect their sport. But let's take a look at the layout of Alta. The terrain is not ideal for
snowboarders. Long traverses are necessary to access some of the best terrain
Alta has to offer. Not many boarders, even the best, will have a fun time trying
to make it out the High-T run after run, in a line-up of people. Will Alta then
have to install rope tows to accommodate people who have PLENTY of places to
ride, just because they feel discriminated against? Pick your sport, pick your
battles. It's a free country, you're free to throw on a pair of skis
and enjoy what Alta has to offer.
Joe Capitalist...that was the best comment ever. Thanks!
Joe Capitalist,I love the sarcasm but can't "like" it
because I don't think the snowboarders understand that you are making fun
of them.Alta needs to keep these boards off of their mountain. It
is time for everyone of us to fight off the looters who think they can demand us
to ruin everything they think is theirs.Remember the Alamo!
@ Joe Capitalist2---You are very clever....like the argument!
@JoeCapitalist2 Super funny...I will be laughing all day. On a
serious note, I am a snowboarder but I also believe in private property rights.
If Alta wants to just allow people with blue skis that is their right.
You skiers just don't understand. I was born a snowboarder. It wasn't
a choice between skiing and snowboarding, I was just born this way and I my
demand equal rights.I am tired of this bigoted attitude that so many
skiers have against people like me. The boardophobes need to come into the 21st
century and accept us as equal in every way. In fact comments like "boarders
ruin the slopes" is just hateful rhetoric. The fight will not be over until
every single resort around the country is forced by government to treat all us
shreaders exactly the same as it treats skiers.Ski shops should be
forced to sell boarding equipment. There should never be any "skiers
only" lifts, runs or resorts even if they are privately owned. We need to
teach our children that boards are better than skies.
"particular class of individuals"? Snowboarders?Well, as
long as snowboarders don't ask to marry skiers and vice versa.....wait...
Snowboarders are the new civil rights movement! They are going to drag Utah
kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The arguments against snowboarders
remind me (somehow) of the arguments aganst Loving vs Virginia, (somehow).
I ski Alta because I don't enjoy sking with snowboarders, they don't
watch were there going and they stop in the middle of the hill and SIT DOWN!!!
What is up with that, there is and always has been an eddicut, connected with
skiing, snow boarders don't know it and don't abide by it. But that
seems to be our society today doesn't it? the "I don't care
attitude, I want to do what ever I want , where ever I want, and if you
don't let me, then your a raciest and a hater, and denying me my RIGHTS!!!
This is another sad commentary on our society, Skiing and snowboarding are
different sports... just like Ice skating and Ice Hockey, you would never do
both on any Ice rink in America..
Wow! I almost fell for it. Hilarious spoof though.
What a crock. This could only come in a society where so many feel entitled. It
has been years since I strapped on skis but I clearly remember confrontations
between the two groups and I applaud Alta for having a place where skiers
don't have to deal with boarders. Two different styles. I hope the judge
tells them to stick it.
First world problems...
I hope the Court awards sanctions. This is part of the "I want what I want
and who cares about anyoneelse" culture. Maybe I should sue the library of
they ask me to be quiet or sue if my city objects to me riding a motorcycle on
the baseball diamonds. This lawsuit is truly an enbarrasment.
If there is a substantial velocity difference, then there is a safety reason to
separate snowboarders and skiers.
Boarders ruined SnowbirdOne boarder goes down a chute and the snow is
exfoliatedLeave Alta aloneThis lawsuit is the most pathetic
examples of legal whining I have ever seen
I whole-heartedly support Alta! Snowboarders are some of the most annoying
people to work with as a skier. If Alta doesn't need the business of
snow-boarders (which they don't) more power to them. Snow Boarders are
absolutely free to use the land, as it is tax-payer supported land. Just not the
lifts, which are private property! Ha! Ha! Go enjoy your time at Snowbird,
I'll stick to Alta. I live overseas, and only get to ski in Utah once
every couple of years, but I don't go to any resort but Alta for this very
reason. If any resort wants to restrict their resort to snow boarders, go right
ahead! That woudl be great, and I wouldn't complain a bit. In fact, they do
restrict certain runs and tricks to snow boarders, so I guess I gotta sue those
resorts now, according to this lawsuit.
I believe this is another sign of an entitled generation seeking to prove a
point. These people will go to court speaking of unequal treatment and
segregation when such is not the case. It's a resort for people who want to
ski. If you want to snowboard there are plenty of options throughout the state
of Utah. How about funding the purchase of land at a current or future resort
that is exclusive to Snowboarders? I'm sure you won't hurt the
feelings of skiiers anywhere.
There surely seems to be a lot of suits filed under the guise of the 14th
Amendment. I suppose some youths will sue their parents because their nose is
bigger than someone else's and they aren't equal in attractiveness,
when they stand on federal property.
I am an old time wave surfer. 1940s. San Onofre, ca. Whether you surfed goofy
foot or not you had a blind side, but you were not traveling at 25 or 30 miles
per hour and it took more than an hour so to learn to surf.Snowboarders have a blind side, but can learn to move out and down the hill in
an hour or two. They also have a blind side. And that is the problem. They
learn so fast and can go so fast and it is difficult to see the back side or
blind side. Thus the accidents and why I like to ski whee there are no
snowboarders. I am now 89 and do not want to have to worry about some one on
the hill that has a blind side. Dick T.
Just when I thought the legal profession couldn't get any more self-serving
and frivolous.... Alta is a private company and should have the right to
restrict activities on their property whether leased or not. Can a group of
snowmobilers sue for access??? This is ridiculous - a monument to the
selfishness of some people.
I love Alta and I completely support them. Being a skiiers only resort is NOT a
form of discrimination as being a skiier or snowboarder is not an immutable
quality of a person. Any individual is fully capable of choosing to be either a
skiier / snowboarder or both.
Snowboards ruin the snow by plowing it all flat. Skis naturally create moguls.
The two are incompatible, and Alta is right to protect the experience for
I've been cut off by just as many skiiers as snowboarders. Both groups are
equal offenders - and I say this as someone who skis and boards. I
completely agree with this lawsuit - FREE ALTA!!
Really? Snowboarders are a protected class? You have a "right" to
snowboard? These people will waste the court's time and hopefully their
own money! They are a few cards short of a full deck. Maybe they spent too
much time snowboarding and not enough time on civic lessons!
One of the main reasons I choose to ski at Alta is because of their "no
snowboard" policy. I am not a great skier and it is very difficult for me
to manuever around groups of snowboarders who are sitting at the top of runs or
are sitting at other places along the course while they get ready for their next
attempts. Snowbird is right next door and allows snowboarders.