Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Snowboarders suing a ski slope on constitutional grounds Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
04-04-2014 07:26 PM
SnowDogWax Rational who needs rational, thats why we have attorney's…
04-04-2014 07:20 PM
Kenai Just to be clear folks this is NOT a court decision. The snowboarders sued the gov; the gov responds. These quotes are just from the government attorney's response to the lawsuit. If the government had agreed with the snowboarders, the forest service would have likely just made Alta allow skiers.

Now the Court will review the arguments from both sides and make a decision. Believe me, just because the government pleadings claim the policy is rational does not automatically make it rational! The Court can still disagree.

Edited to add: yeah, what he said!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtg View Post
Also, note that this is just the forest service backing Alta. The forest service are also defendants in the lawsuit. The snowboarders haven't lost yet.

The crux of their argument is that a snowboard creates an unnecessary risk to skiers. That is pure unmitigated bullshit.
04-04-2014 03:45 PM
jtg I don't buy the "just ride somewhere else" argument.

Alta is an amazing mountain, of which there are only a handful in any geographic area, and only a handful of areas that have comparable resorts. It's consistently rated as one of the top 5 resorts in North America on several different criteria, and often rated #1 in North America for snow quality.

"Keeping the skiers on that mountain" is a confusing one, because it's not like any other mountain doesn't have skiers as the majority, so I don't think it's to anyone's advantage.

Even though snowbird is next door, Alta averages 530" a year compared to snowbird's 459". The only place that gets more snow is Mt. Baker, and Baker snow is heavy wet shit in comparison. So not only do they basically get the most snow, but also the best snow. Snowboarders are also at an economic disadvantage because skiers get a pass that covers all of the terrain on both mountains.

So it's pretty much bullshit that they are denying access to public, national forest land, that is arguably the most desirable place on the continent for this recreational activity, over nothing more than petty snobbery.

Also, note that this is just the forest service backing Alta. The forest service are also defendants in the lawsuit. The snowboarders haven't lost yet.

Quote:
Under a 40-year permit issued to Alta by the Forest Service in 2002, the ski area is allowed to restrict any type of skiing device that creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers.
The crux of their argument is that a snowboard creates an unnecessary risk to skiers. That is pure unmitigated bullshit.
04-04-2014 03:06 PM
Bertieman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhaas View Post
Besides, Id rather have all the uptight bigots all confined to one place anyway.
Yes!
04-04-2014 12:57 PM
Deacon
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardasacatshead View Post
There are enough great mountains in Utah that surely it makes no difference if Alta opens to boarders or not. I'm picking up that this is a case of proving a point rather than having the plaintiffs actually a vested interest in the outcome.

At the end of the day Alta is losing money by reducing their potential customer base. Their loss. I'd probably boycott the joint anyway because if the cock bags running it are that old school and set in their ways, it's probably got a fucked vibe anyway.
all off this.
04-04-2014 12:18 PM
hardasacatshead There are enough great mountains in Utah that surely it makes no difference if Alta opens to boarders or not. I'm picking up that this is a case of proving a point rather than the plaintiffs actually having a vested interest in the outcome.

At the end of the day Alta is losing money by reducing their potential customer base. Their loss. I'd probably boycott the joint anyway because if the cock bags running it are that old school and set in their ways, it's probably got a fucked vibe anyway.
04-04-2014 09:55 AM
surfinsnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by td.1000 View Post
"It demeans the Constitution to suggest that the amendment that protected the interests of former slaves during Reconstruction and James Meredith and the Little Rock Nine must be expanded to protect the interests of those who engage in a particularized winter sport"

I'm no politician, but isn't that basically saying the constitution is out-dated?

still don't get their argument tho. are they saying snowboarding is dangerous for skiers? shouldn't they have to prove that first? otherwise you're back at square one with that big ugly word called "prejudice"
Exactly. Only THREE resorts in the entire country ban snowboarding. It would seem facts and statistics are not on Alta's side. This is a ridiculous court decision. But will the plaintiffs really feel the need to take it all the way to the Supreme Court? With the bozos running the show now it would seem to be a waste of money...they'll just rule for the big corporation.
04-04-2014 09:42 AM
td.1000 "It demeans the Constitution to suggest that the amendment that protected the interests of former slaves during Reconstruction and James Meredith and the Little Rock Nine must be expanded to protect the interests of those who engage in a particularized winter sport"

I'm no politician, but isn't that basically saying the constitution is out-dated?

still don't get their argument tho. are they saying snowboarding is dangerous for skiers? shouldn't they have to prove that first? otherwise you're back at square one with that big ugly word called "prejudice"
04-04-2014 08:36 AM
supham
Feds Back Alta's Snowboarding Ban

No snowboarding at Alta.

Feds Back Alta's Snowboarding Ban | News from the Field | OutsideOnline.com
01-21-2014 05:07 PM
Hank Scorpio
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightCoastShred View Post
Why do people care about Alta? Snowbird is just as good and gets the same if not more snow than Alta. Plus Alta attracts hoards of skiers away from other mountains.
Ding ding ding ding! Finally, someone gets it.

Let skiers have Alta. It's one mountain, and it keeps the mountains we go to less crowded. Besides, who cares about one particular mountain (especially one so unremarkable as Alta) when there are hundreds of great mountains/resorts for us to enjoy in the US?

This is such a non-fucking-issue that it's almost laughable.

I'm actually jealous of those fighting for Alta to allow snowboarders though because they must not have any real problems in their life to focus on. Must be nice.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome