Gonna be riding at Alta next year bros!

[b_line]

Well, maybe. But I would rock that altabird pass if they weren't prejudiced against my onestickedness.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=28373042&n...-at-alta-resort&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1

 

[UGLI baby]

I've snowbarded at Alta a TON.

on the app. square bizness.

 

[b_line]

I've snowbarded at Alta a TON.

on the app. square bizness.

like ridden lifts? i have ridden down from baldy, and hiked, but never ridden lifts

 

[UGLI baby]

like ridden lifts? i have ridden down from baldy, and hiked, but never ridden lifts

Haha ya, just used to hike Alta during the pre season cuz they had the most snow. Go up there and set up little rails and jumps and stuff. Never riden a lift or anything but Alta is where I learned to ski when I was little.

I don't think anything will come of the lawsuit in that article tbh. Doesn't really bother me as a snowboarder either.


on the app. square bizness.

 

[b_line]

Haha ya, just used to hike Alta during the pre season cuz they had the most snow. Go up there and set up little rails and jumps and stuff. Never riden a lift or anything but Alta is where I learned to ski when I was little.

I don't think anything will come of the lawsuit in that article tbh. Doesn't really bother me as a snowboarder either.


on the app. square bizness.

Yeah that's what I would do there too. We used to build a jump late season on the tailings pike at the bottom.

I thought the article was funny because in it they interviewed my brothers girlfriend.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Haha ya, just used to hike Alta during the pre season cuz they had the most snow. Go up there and set up little rails and jumps and stuff. Never riden a lift or anything but Alta is where I learned to ski when I was little.

I don't think anything will come of the lawsuit in that article tbh. Doesn't really bother me as a snowboarder either.


on the app. square bizness.

I agree. Snowboarders are not a protected class, and the resort has a rational (two-stick pricks!) reason for excluding snowboarders.

Edit: I would think they would make a lot more $$$ if they allowed boarders in too. Especially if Deer Valley followed suit.

 

[b_line]

I agree. Snowboarders are not a protected class, and the resort has a rational (two-stick pricks!) reason for excluding snowboarders.

Edit: I would think they would make a lot more $$$ if they allowed boarders in too. Especially if Deer Valley followed suit.

I don't think Alta is really worried about money. Sometimes they are so crowded they have to stop selling tickets. It is probably a more popular resort just due to the fact that snowboarders are not allowed. They might not be more popular than solitude or brighton if they allow snowboarders. They would probably have to build better lifts/more lifts to keep up with snowbird.

I have heard though that there has been talk about selling to snowbird, or snowbird selling to them, and the two resorts merging. It would an awesome resort to have both of them together, though.

 

[Bronco70]

As a snowboarder, I was pissed that this **** has finally hit the fan. There are three "ski-only" resorts left in the country. Two of them here in the motherland.

I don't want Alta or Deer Valley opening up to snowboarders, and here's why: They are a magnet for the ski-snob douche bags that would otherwise be fouling the runs at the places I frequent. I like the idea that they can go be by themselves, and not bother me.

There are plenty of places to ride. Just as good or better than Alta or Deer Valley.

**** 'em.

 

[b_line]

As a snowboarder, I was pissed that this **** has finally hit the fan. There are three "ski-only" resorts left in the country. Two of them here in the motherland.

I don't want Alta or Deer Valley opening up to snowboarders, and here's why: They are a magnet for the ski-snob douche bags that would otherwise be fouling the runs at the places I frequent. I like the idea that they can go be by themselves, and not bother me.

There are plenty of places to ride. Just as good or better than Alta or Deer Valley.

**** 'em.

But Alts is steep and deep. All the snobs can keep deer valley, that place sucks anyways.

 

[bordelais7]

Based on the "protected class" argument, they're going to have to allow snowmobilers as well, right?

 

[bordelais7]

Just seems like a "slippery slope" to me.



Baahhahahahahaha...get it?

 

[Bronco70]

But Alts is steep and deep.

I haven't been to Alta since the last time I went skiing (literally decades ago) so I can't profess any expertise, but by my recollection, Snowbird is pretty similar.

 

[bigb]

I haven't been to Alta since the last time I went skiing (literally decades ago) so I can't profess any expertise, but by my recollection, Snowbird is pretty similar.

It's been a few since I've skied Alta, but I think overall Alta is steeper.

 

[b_line]

Based on the "protected class" argument, they're going to have to allow snowmobilers as well, right?

No, it would just be like at any other ski resort. No uphill traffic, only downhill.

 

[b_line]

Lol. I was watching the video on Ksl, and they interviewed my brother and his girlfriend at snowbird asking them about the lawsuit. Apparently my brother is involved with the lawsuit.

 

[HeavenHarris]

Just seems like a "slippery slope" to me.



Baahhahahahahaha...get it?

heh.


i got it bros. i really got it. finally got an inside joke bros. so proud rite now.

 

[HeavenHarris]

Lol. I was watching the video on Ksl, and they interviewed my brother and his girlfriend at snowbird asking them about the lawsuit. Apparently my brother is involved with the lawsuit.

deets or it didnt happen ?

 

[bordelais7]

No, it would just be like at any other ski resort. No uphill traffic, only downhill.

Says who? Their whole "argument" is that because of the ski resort's arrangement with the USFS, that private decisions such as ski/snowboard -- or uphill/downhill -- don't apply.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Says who? Their whole "argument" is that because of the ski resort's arrangement with the USFS, that private decisions such as ski/snowboard -- or uphill/downhill -- don't apply.

It appears that the lawsuit is based on an equal protection claim (from the article I read). You may argue that because it is federal land, equal protection rights apply.

However, in order to defeat a equal protection claim for a non-protected class (snowboarders--arguably you are really just excluding equipment and not people anyway), the plaintiff would have to show that the exclusion does not meet a rational basis level of scrutiny or review. Rational basis review simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason. No way this lawsuit exceeds unless they can successfully argue that the real reason for the rule is to exclude a protected class (e.g., 90% of black people that want to use the mountain snowboard and the rule is in place to exclude them).

 

[franklin]

It appears that the lawsuit is based on an equal protection claim (from the article I read). You may argue that because it is federal land, equal protection rights apply.

However, in order to defeat a equal protection claim for a non-protected class (snowboarders--arguably you are really just excluding equipment and not people anyway), the plaintiff would have to show that the exclusion does not meet a rational basis level of scrutiny or review. Rational basis review simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason. No way this lawsuit exceeds unless they can successfully argue that the real reason for the rule is to exclude a protected class (e.g., 90% of black people that want to use the mountain snowboard and the rule is in place to exclude them).

Snowboarders using the Americans With Disabilities Act argument. Go figure.