Snowboarders sue to ride with skiers at Alta resort


Return To Article
  • llsoccer draper, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    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 snowboarders.

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    Lol, I love it JoeCapitalist. Let's stand up to hate!

  • Satus Pass cda, ID
    Jan. 20, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    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 any flakes!


  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    There is nothing I hate more than being on the interstate surrounded by big rigs. Perhaps I should sue the trucking industry.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    It's a slippery slope. Look at Colorado.
    First it's boarders, then it's marijuana.

  • JohnN monroe, WA
    Jan. 18, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    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.

  • jfh Logan, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    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 know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    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.

  • taraxopoios Lake Tapps, WA
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • markusjbear Foothill Ranch, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist2, I am going to be laughing for days. That was great.

  • ThisRandomDude logan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Bearone Monroe, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Wow, that was awful Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    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!

  • BH Tremonton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    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 out.

  • Wallbanger Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    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!!

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    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 ridiculous lawsuit.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    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.

  • armchair quarterback DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    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?

  • armchair quarterback DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    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.

    Jan. 16, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Hate our lawsuit happy society, seems like we often confuse wants, needs, rights and greed!

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Lawyer in Spain Rota, 00
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    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 other resort.

  • AZ Blue & Red Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Finpusher Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Robert Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    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.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    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 trails.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    I want to use my inner tube on Alta's beautiful runs. What is the lawyer's phone number?

  • clearthink Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    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.

  • pocyUte Pocatello, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    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.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    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 overlooked.

  • loveTheSnow SALT LAKE CTY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    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 interesting....

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Whether or not to allow snowboarders at Alta has turned into a literal and figurative "slippery slope" argument.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    I'm not prejudiced against snowboarders...some of my best friends are snowboarders (not that there's anything wrong with that).

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    "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.

  • james d. morrison Boise, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    I like to ride toboggans. Shall I sue to be allowed to ride my sleds at Brighton and Solitude?

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    It would be appropriate for the suit to be filed on April 1st.

  • PookyBear84010 KAYSVILLE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    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.

  • loveTheSnow SALT LAKE CTY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    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!

  • red.diehard Central, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Is everybody a victim of discrimination?

  • Californian Santa Ana, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    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?

  • John S. Harvey Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    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.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    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.

  • HanSki Boston, MA
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Cougrrr Beaufort, SC
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Joe Capitalist...that was the best comment ever. Thanks!

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    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!

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    @ Joe Capitalist2---You are very clever....like the argument!

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    @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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    "particular class of individuals"? Snowboarders?

    Well, as long as snowboarders don't ask to marry skiers and vice versa.....wait...

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    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).

  • Betcha Waltham, MA
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    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..

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Wow! I almost fell for it. Hilarious spoof though.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    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.

  • DC Alexandria, VA
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    First world problems...

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    If there is a substantial velocity difference, then there is a safety reason to separate snowboarders and skiers.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:39 a.m.

    Boarders ruined Snowbird
    One boarder goes down a chute and the snow is exfoliated
    Leave Alta alone

    This lawsuit is the most pathetic examples of legal whining I have ever seen

  • True Blue SEoul Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Gonstips Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:19 a.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    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.

    Jan. 15, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    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.

  • 1Observer Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Tim Jones Salt Lake City, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Robert Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    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 skiers.

  • Gracie K Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    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!!

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    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!

  • jean22 Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    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.