Court Upholds Snowboarding Ban At Utah Ski Resort"

"In Utah, the Alta Ski Area gets to keep its slogan "Alta is for Skiers."

A federal appeals court has upheld the resort's long-standing snowboarding ban in a legal challenge brought by a group of local snowboarders.

The case touched on a sensitive topic in the ski industry and especially in the West, where most resorts depend on leasing land from the U.S. Forest Service for their operations. Does a ski area have the right to prohibit or single out a certain type of user's access to federal public land that's supposed to be open to everyone?

A nonprofit organization calling itself Wasatch Equality argued it didn't. The group, which includes professional snowboarder Bjorn Leines, filed suit in 2014 alleging the ban violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding a lower court ruling, concluded that Alta had a right to enforce its policy because the U.S. Forest Service didn't influence the decision and therefore it wasn't a blanket "state action" that could have amounted to discrimination.

There's long been friction between skiers and snowboarders. And Alta, east of Salt Lake City, has prided — and marketed — itself as a snowboarder-free destination. Slogans boast this all over the mountain, including at lift ticket windows and near an entrance gate that connects Alta with the adjacent Snowbird Resort, where snowboarding is allowed.

The case was closely watched because a ruling in favor of the snowboarders could have called into question the legality of the few remaining snowboarding bans at ski resorts in the U.S.

Only Alta, Deer Valley in Utah, and Vermont's Mad River Glen still ban snowboarders. Taos Ski Valley Resort in New Mexico lifted its ban several years ago."

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/...n-at-utah-ski-resort

But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding a lower court ruling, concluded that Alta had a right to enforce its policy because the U.S. Forest Service didn't influence the decision and therefore it wasn't a blanket "state action" that could have amounted to discrimination.

I'm not a lawyer, but...

This ruling seems troubling to me. Since when is discrimination only discrimination when the state does it? Does this mean that private businesses are free to discriminate however they like?

If the ruling had said that discrimination based on the "usage mode" of a paying customer was okay to enforce, I would be bothered less. But if the ruling really rests on the fact that the entity doing the discriminating is a business rather than a government agency, that seems like a bad precedent.

I'm so old that I remember some resorts would not allow telemarkers--Park City and Alta, I think.

Similarly resorts also ban snow machine riding and sledding within their special use permit boundaries. Since any snowboard rider may ride at Alta if they wear skiis it is not a case of discrimination against a class of people.

I wonder if mono-skiis are allowed and if so what about teleboards? The latter is very close to a hard boot carving snowboard, though even more nerdy.

I also disagree with banning any particular class of snowrider from federal lands (and I've got my own s-word for what Alta is for). But I believe the lower court ruling cited all the classes of snow equipment currently and typically banned from ski areas, including innertubes, snow disks, etc, and ruled that there is no constitutional right to snowboard.

As for the wisdom of banning a potentially major source of customers, well that's what Alta is for!

Ha, I think Alta should stay the same as long as it can and I say that as a snowboarder. I credit them for making me jump into the back country. I was there in 96 or 97 with an intergenerational mixed bag of nuts on skis, boards, and telemark gear. We rented a great cabin and first spent a day at snowbird trying to find good snow. It was hard packed and icy and the skiers blamed it on all the snowboarders. The next day I rented skis and went to Alta. It was hard packed and icy and had a weird uptight country club feel. The third day we walked across the street climbed a ridge that was turning into nice corn and then dropped into heavenly nipple deep powder that I can still taste. I had walked a board up a hill before for some turns and before that I had tried to turn skinny track skis down hills and off trail but this was so much better. Alta can keep the country clubbers and snowbird can give the rest their outlet. Across the street from both of them is probably still home to better snow with more possibilities for those who like fewer restrictions on their free time.

Alta, Mad River Glen and Deer Valley all limit their guests to two planks.   

Each of these businesses has identified their key client base as retro-grouch skiers.

Taos started allowing snowboarders in 2007 -- one of the reasons for the change in policy was that multi-generational families -- including the family of the owners, included snowboarders.

The opposition to one-plankers is pretty irrational -- but don't try to tell them that:



I think the next user group that will start lobbying for access to groomed XC and lift served areas will be "snow-bike" or "fat-tire" bike riders.



In Anchorage they have separate trails for XC skiiers and "snow-bike" riders.

I've wondered about how Alta would treat the ski bike community since we are on 2 planks?  So far the only resorts I'm aware of that don't allow us locally in the NW is Mt Baker and Bachelor.  This shot is from White Pass last weekend. The upper mountain was dead during the pond skim.

"Bikes" with two skiis are yet another category,  this is what I referred to by the term "snow-bike"

I wonder what Alta would say if this guy tried to ski there:

Jim Martinson, U.S. Ski and Snowboard Hall of Famer

Back in the old days in the Alps you could be a penniless bum with no visible means of support except what you could manage from giving ski lessons, and yet when walking down the street the fact that you carried a pair of skis over your shoulder meant that you were involved in something that was intrinsically good and worthy of the smallest bit of respect. The authorities would never bother you because you were obviously a skier, someone who skied and to them that was OK, and I think that is what the rationale behind the policy at Alta is. They feel that there is something worthwhile, possibly even special about skiing and being a skier. I know it is 2016 and not 1960, but time does nothing to something that is close to an art form when mastered and the respect that Alta shows to those who ski is something they consider important in the recognition of an endeavor that has been at the heart their history. It must be looked at in their perspective. You must ski to experience Alta, that is all; just ski. How hard could it be?

Lowell, spend some time living outside of the PNW. Ski culture is different in other places...

... Martinson apparently skis and would not encounter any issues, aside from the multitude of traverse lines to the goods.

Lowell, spend some time living outside of the PNW. Ski culture is different in other places...

... Martinson apparently skis and would not encounter any issues, aside from the multitude of traverse lines to the goods.

I've skied at Alta, but admittedly have not lived in the area, so I've never been immersed in the culture, whatever it is.

It would be interesting to see a formal definition of the difference between snowboarding and skiing. Is it the sideways stance? I'm guessing it's not the single plank, because I bet a mono-ski would be okay. Jim Martinson's rig is essentially a single plank.

The ban on snowboards just seems arbitrary and silly. If I was to ride Alta on a splitboard (in split mode) would I be classified as a skier or a snowboarder? And if would be okay to ride in split mode, why not in snowboard mode? How about if I'm holding ski poles?

The irrationality of it boggles, but I guess that's Alta's right.

The "Alta Boys" seem to consider themselves men of the world, men of sophisticated pleasures that the rest of us can't appreciate. I suppose stolen glances and discreet touching are all part of the sweet adventure?

"What happens at Alta stays at Alta." Er, hopefully.

I see it as a marketing tool used to sway the narrow minded to one area. It appears to me to be more of a way to keep a specific generation of rider out, and the whole idea that the terrain is not suited for snowboards is nonsense. As the old school skier generation dies off the rules will eventually change (my guess) since more families are diverse in their riding and usually don't stick to only one way to slide. The rules will follow where the money is and so far the skier only tactic works to keep their current customer base happy. In the end its all about the money cuz its just doing business. When I go to Utah I go to Brighton anyway and could care less what Alta does.

Risking slings and arrows I want to comment because now one else has mentioned my concern.  Maybe I'm out of line or touch or just getting old but its an issue with me. 

I skied Alta this year for the first time in ~40 years.  For my wife and I it was an unexpected surprise to not worry about being hit by a snow boarder.  Does anyone else notice this?  I've been hit a couple times by boarders just standing in plain sight on the side of the run.  Jeesh.  Fortunately no serious injury resulted.  A high school buddy was hit by a boarder on Luckyshot a few years ago.  He suffered severe brain injury.  After a year of recovery he was starting to get some mentation back then suddenly succumbed to brain cancer.  I think the events are linked.  He was just a great, healthy and talented guy in so many areas of life.  What a tragedy.  Unfortunately people get hit and killed by skiers too, its a risk sport.  I'd imagine the National Ski Patrol has statistics on collisions.  It would be interesting to see what they show.

I've never boarded so I know diddly.    However, I suspect there is a blind side element that less experienced boarders do not always account for.  My level of concern goes up when there are boarders around.

No boards at Alta will influence our decision to ski there.  We still visit any resort we wish so I'm not that paranoid, just more careful as I age.   I think Alta is purely angleing for my demographic.  Its just their marketing.  Alta is aware of their niche.   

If this were to happen at Crystal I'd be happy but I wouldn't be in favor of it because the choices are more limited here than in SLC.  Utah boarders can ski the same snow right next door at Snowbird as well as many, many other areas very close to SLC.

Fire away.

You're just out of touch. Kooks are kooks on one plank or two.

You're just out of touch. Kooks are kooks on one plank or two.

So true!!

When I go to Utah I go to Brighton anyway and could care less what Alta does.

So... ?

Alta freshies would probably be ruined from all the traversing like at Bach on the moraine. Alta's lifts are not situated very well for immediate fall line skiing.