What ever it takes!

Great topic. I'm probably going to stick my foot in my mouth since I'm going to just type and not think, but here we go...

I PRAY that Alta wins this. I'd rather see the resorts get inter-connected than this lawsuit win. The public lands argument is bogus. Should I be able to go ride a snowmobile around the ski area during the day because its public lands? No way - its a safety thing (I'll get back to that point). Running analogy - should we open up the Olympic Trials Marathon to everyone who wants to run? The race is usually run on PUBLIC roads, after all.

I don't understand why people feel like everything needs to be accessible to everyone. Alta has such amazaing history as a SKI area. Not to say that historical precedent is always the determing factor, but why can't these guys just make a snowboard-only resort instead of forcing their will on Alta? If Alta thought snowboarders would enhance the experience, they would allow them. There's a reason they don't... and it isn't just to be nazis.

Half of Alta's terrain requires traverses that you can't make without skis and poles. That's a fact.

I'm not against snowboarders (I spent a lot of days on the mountain in Vail w/ boarders who were good friends of mine). But honestly I find them, in GENERAL, to be something of a hazard. That being said, a lot of skiers are hazards too! :-)

My 3 favorite places to ski in Utah are Alta, Solitude, and Deer Valley. Two of those are skiers-only and the other one has Brighton right up the road so its mainly skiers anyways.

There's my opening argument! :-)

Quick comment before I run off to lunch. My coworker said that they allowed snowboarders initially but Alta's reputation as A.nother L.ong T.raverse A.head was problematic for snowboarers. So it was more logistics. I can not see how they have any chance of winning this. My understanding is they can access the Forest Service land just not via Alta's land or equipment.

I'm actually very happy someone answered me with logical explanations. I was getting so fed up with the "Punk A*$" snowboarder argument. I've never been to Alta since I can't ski worth a crap so I don't know how the terrain is. I'm not upset with Alta for making a business decision, I just wanted to know why the skiers wanted a non-snowboarding resort so bad. It's the people, not what they ride. I doubt Alta would have a problem with Advanced Mature Snowboarders. But the "No Punk kids" rule would probably get them in more trouble.

The "punk" argument is stupid. There are plenty of punk skiers everywhere, too... although they tend to hang out w/ the boarding punks, and therefore aren't at Alta or Deer Valley!

This whole thing seems like a publicity stunt to me. The snowboard alliance is silly if they think they are going to win this. And realistically all they are doing is stirring up controversy and creating MORE of a divide between the groups.

Does ALTA ban those stupid helmets with Mohawks on them? If so I may take up skiing.

Better than skiing w/ no helmet! THAT should be banned.

I used to ride with no helmet, then I found out it held my goggles better and kept my ears warm. Win Win.

I was around when they were fighting over whether they had to wear helmets in the Tour De France. I even had one of those dopy leather ones.

Update

http://outtherecolorado.com/forest-service-backs-ski-areas-snowboarding-ban/article/1517455