AltaPano

 IMAGE: Alta, UT (Wikimedia Commons)

Four snowboarders are suing Alta Ski Area and the US Forest Service for the right to share the mountain. The lawsuit states that Alta Ski Area, which operates on US Forest Service land, and it’s policy of not allowing snowboarding is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“Snowboarding and skiing are wholesome, family-friendly activities, and there is no reason why they cannot coexist,” said Drew Hicken of Wasatch Equality. “We feel that it is time for Alta to let go of outdated prejudices that perpetuate a skier-versus-snowboarder mentality and allow everyone, regardless of whether they are skiers or snowboarders, to share the mountain together.”

Read more in the official press release below:

SALT LAKE CITY — Jan. 15, 2014 — Wasatch Equality, a Utah nonprofit corporation, and four individual snowboarders filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against Alta Ski Area and the United States Forest Service, seeking to permanently enjoin Alta from enforcing its anti-snowboarder policy and snowboarding ban. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration from the Court that Alta’s snowboarding prohibition, as enforced by the Forest Service, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore unlawful. A copy of the Complaint can be found on Wasatch Equality’s website http://wasatchequality.org/lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Schofield, attorney with Parr Brown Gee & Loveless. According to Schofield: “Alta is one of only three ski resorts in the United States that does not allow snowboarding, and Alta is the only one of these resorts that is operated on public land controlled by the Forest Service. Because of Alta’s relationship with the government, Alta’s actions must comply with the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Alta’s prohibition against snowboarders excludes a particular class of individuals from use and enjoyment of public land based on irrational discrimination against snowboarders, which denies them equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Alta operates under a Forest Service Permit, which specifically states that the public lands “shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes,” yet Alta’s refuses to allow certain members of the public from using its land. The Complaint alleges that when Alta set forth its snowboarder ban in the mid-1980s, its policy was initiated as a result of animus held by Alta’s ownership, management, and customers towards snowboarders, and that Alta continues to enforce its ban based on this animus. The Complaint further alleges that the reasons offered by Alta in support of its policy are a pretext and that there is no legitimate reason for Alta and the Forest Service’s continued denial of access to one group of people (snowboarders) while granting access to a similar group of people (skiers). Thus, according to the Complaint, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and snowboarding ban cannot be enforced.

Sign up for news and our top posts


226 Comments

  1. mind says:

    as a snowboarder, lol.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Alta sucks for snowboarding anyway!! Who cares!!!

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Hell ya! I can’t wait to snowboard Alta next year, and if any of you skiers tred on me, I’ll spray your ass.

      Reply
    • i like turtles says:

      yep, that says it all

      Reply
    • krskier says:

      It has nothing to do with the kind of people boarders are or any of that garbage. Boarders carve the snow different then skis and the two should not co exist on the same mountain…PERIOD.

      When there are unlimited options for boarders, this lawsuit reflects the flaming liberal mentality that is ruining our country. YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL A COMPANY WHO THEY HAVE TO SERVE. YOU BUILD A RESORT AND THEN YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. QUIT INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

      Enough said.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:

        Man there is so much wrong with your post krskier. You probably have the mentality that black and whites should be segregated and we should shoot people that cross the border illegally. I ski and I board and I don’t have a problem with a ski only resort, but when you build your company on public lands that are overseen by everyone’s tax dollars and exclude a certain group of people then there is a problem. It is not a “flaming liberal mentality” that is ruining our country, it is your fascist hypocritical “Reaganomics” way of thinking that is staling it. BP should have gone bankrupt with all the clean up but they got away with barely paying anything and their stocks are at an all time high, plus the stock market keeps climbing and corporations are making great profits so your point is invalid.

        Reply
      • Perfect Bumps says:

        agreed about carving it differently. look at the bumps at alta compared to the bumps at a resort that allows snowboarders… totally different.

        Reply
  2. oneplank says:

    1 plank for life! that is mono!

    Reply
  3. reynaldo says:

    one time I found a dead hobo in the woods & took a polaroid & showed my little brother & told him it was Santa

    Reply
  4. duuuuuude says:

    While “snowboarders” as a class is ridiculous, and snowboarding is not a right; it is public land, and they should have access to use this land. If I were Alta, I just wouldn’t build a park. That would eliminate the skittle thugs they want to avoid.

    Reply
  5. Bill Brasky says:

    Snowboarders CAN use the land, they just CAN’T use the lifts

    Reply
  6. tBatt says:

    I’ll get the popcorn.

    Reply
  7. Ozark says:

    While the Alta is on U.S. Forest service land and is open to the public, the lifts are privately owned and operated. If snowborders wish to hike the mountain and ride down they are well within the confines of the law to do so. Since the lifts are privately owned it is up to their discretion to decide who is and isn’t aloud to ride them.

    Reply
    • Billybob says:

      Then maybe snowboarders should simply install their own lifts on the public land? Your logic seems twisted.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:

        The land is leased so nobody else has the right to build anything on the property. They only have the right to lawful use of the land, not the private facilities

        Reply
      • J-OG says:

        The issue there is that the U.S. Forest Service issues permits allowing people to build said lifts. It’s highly unlikely that they would issue permits to multiple parties allowing them to build their own lifts.

        Reply
        • Aeryn says:

          Ha that’s a peculiar argument, they built the lifts so they get to choose who rides them? They are ‘private’ lifts? WRONG!!! They are ‘installed’/built on Forrest service land, therefore regardless of ownership they fall under forestry service jurisdiction and regulations. I know, I worked at a Forrest service, privately OPERATED ski resort in Arizona. The ‘owners’ of the ‘rights’ to use the land must adhere to strict federal guidelines. It is not important who owns the lift, because they are installed on public lands. They still are responsible for the regulations, if nothing else the owners loose their privaleges to operate the resort if they fail to comply. This would not work at a privately owned resort where the owners actually have the deed for the land. If they don’t like it, tell them to get the fff out of public land! Snowboarders all the way!

          Reply
          • Anonymous says:

            By this argument, you wouldn’t need a pass or ticket to ride said lifts since you are a member of the public. How do you think that’ll go down?

        • thats what i was thinking says:

          yea everyone should build lifts on alta and cover the whole ski area in lifts!!
          lifts gallorre!

          Reply
      • P-Dog says:

        This is an excellent idea. Go lease some land, build the lifts, advertise and market it as a mecca for snowboarders only, where you don’t have to worry about dealing with skiers and their odd ways. I promise that I won’t try to come and ski there.

        Reply
    • huh says:

      the lifts are on leased land, quit being a fascist

      Reply
    • Matt says:

      Alta does not allow uphill traffic by skiers or snowboarders, period.

      Reply
    • steezymatt says:

      You sound like every ski nazi that would rather die before Alta allows snowboarders to use their chairlifts.

      Reply
    • Ryan W says:

      My opinion is that Alta is not banning the people from their area they are banning the item the “snowboard” so i feel that it doesn’t infringe on the 14th amendment. the snowboarders in question are welcome to put on a pair of skis and go ski Alta i’m sure.

      Reply
    • G Man says:

      Sounds like Ran Paul logic. Guess the area doesn’t have to serve hamburgers to certain people in the base lodge facilities either or use the drinking fountains either.

      Reply
    • David says:

      Not true. Look up the snowboarders who hiked from Brighton across the saddle and were issued trespassing tickets for riding down Alta side. They do enforce people riding on the land regardless of lifts being used or not.

      Reply
  8. MT says:

    what a joke. No one is prohibited from going to Alta. The restriction is only on the type of equipment you are allowed to use there. This will be laughed out of court.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Exactly.

      Reply
    • Ben says:

      Amen, finally a comment that makes sense..

      Reply
    • Just a guy says:

      You’re telling me I can’t drive my hummer up the slopes and grill at the top?

      You’re descriminating against me!

      I’m a snowboarder and I would love to shred Alta, but this lawsuit is a little silly.

      Reply
      • That one dude says:

        I can see why you would want to, but I really don’t think that Alta would be a very fun place to snowbird. Almost all of the more exciting runs require long traverses that just wouldnt be that easy on a snowboard. Im not saying you wouldnt have fun, but honestly I think snowbird would be a better match.

        Reply
  9. Plug says:

    Have fun boarding 1/4 of the terrain

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Please, skiing is easier than snowboarding. Just because you ski doesn’t make it the better/more skillful of the two.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:

        alright dipshit, it’s 1/4 of the terrain because a large proportion of alta is only accessible from long traverses that can only (reasonably) be done on skis.

        Reply
        • Anonymous says:

          That’s what splitboards are for homie

          Reply
        • Anonymous says:

          Hi – ever heard of splitboards? duh.

          Reply
          • Anonymous says:

            I am sure you are going to want to go through the process to split your board every run for what is less than 5 minute side step. I hope that Alta opens it up so I can laugh as I cruise by all boarders stopping to split their boy at the end of hi boy traverse!

      • Who cares says:

        It isn’t the level of difficulty, it’s the traversing that snowboarders will have trouble with. Most of the good runs at alta require a traverse.

        Reply
      • Anonymous says:

        Pssh go scrape off a sick line

        Reply
    • ak4lyfe says:

      as a lifelong Alaskan, and extremely proficient boarder and skier i will just say that there is no traverse that a skilled snowboarder cant make. Yes skiing can make it a bit more easy to traverse but as an avid boarder, I challenge you too any traverse and ill meet you at the end! boarding a traverse requires much more skill, strength, stability, and balls but when one of us “one plankers” passes you (skier) with only one foot strapped in and pumping every little speed bump, I assure you (skier) that you are just lazy and don’t have the balance or strength to snowboard. SKIERS AND BOARDERS CAN RIDE EQUALLY ANY TERRAIN. I say fuck yeah for suing alta!

      Reply
      • superboarder says:

        I agree completely- a proficient snowboarder can get pretty much anywhere a skier can get on the mountain. That being said, there are a very few places at Jackson Hole, Whistler/Blackcomb, Squaw Valley, Snowbird, and any number of Big Mountain resorts that even Shaun White or Jeremy Jones would have a hard time, if not an impossible time, getting to. That is no reason to disallow snowboarders access to the other 95% percent of the mountain where a good boarder can ride side by side with their skiing brethren. Having skied for 45+ years and snowboarded for 35+ years all over the world, I find the ” you could never traverse there” argument absurd. Besides, Alta skiers do not always side step up traverses. Baldy Chutes, Devils Castle Apron, the Shoulder from Wildcat, and Eddies High Nowhere, to name a few spots, are all accessed by boot hiking skiers at Alta. Let ‘em have it!

        Reply
      • Guermo says:

        So true, there is no traverse that a skilled snowboarder cannot make.
        When Alpine Meadows opened to snowboarding in 1997, all i heard was that I wouldn’t be able to get to alot of the terrain. What i found is that i could get out to everything faster than most skiers, be riding the subdivisions off the back of lakeview -and traversing all the way back to summit chair, traversing to Berni’s bowl from the top of roundhouse on pow days when summit was closed, or seeing who could get out to grouse rock first.
        It’s just a closed minded way of thinking to assume that all snowboarders cannot traverse.

        Reply
        • Guermo says:

          That being said, after two seasons i realized that i needed to go back to Squaw next door, which is probably what will happen with most alta / bird riders.

          Reply
      • Scotty says:

        Vail is a massive traverse and I board there all the time. Keep a fresh wax on your stick and know how to read the terrain ahead of you. I hear the same thing about Wolf Creek and I shralp there too.

        That traverse line is oooolllllddd….

        Reply
  10. Tom johnson says:

    Snowboarders are allowed at alta, they just have to ski when they go there. Seems pretty simple. That’s what I do.. Alta is for skiers!

    Reply
  11. Flyhigh says:

    As citizens they have every right to use the land, they just have to put two planks under their feet instead of one. That’d be like suing a hiking trail for not allowing bicycles…

    Reply
    • Scott C says:

      Best comment.

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      this

      Reply
    • thegeorge says:

      I think this argument will hold in court. However, I don’t really agree. Everyone on this website should be aware of how much their sport is integrated into their identity. I am a skier, and skiing is an important part of who I am. If I heard someone say skiing was stupid, I would feel as though they had called me stupid, because skiing is part of me. I would likely brush it off, let them have their opinion, I don’t need their approval right? but the implication is there. I imagine this is how snowboarders feel about Alta. In saying, “we don’t want your sport here” they’re saying “we don’t want YOU here” because our sports are a part of who we are. I think that’s why people get heated about this topic.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:

        Skiing is stupid

        Reply
        • Chasing the pow with one plank. says:

          And you’re a fucking moron. That’s why skiers and snowboarders don’t get along. Because you give us boarders a bad name by saying these dumb ass things. We all love the snow and we all love the mountains some of just like one board instead of two. It doesn’t make us different.

          Reply
        • Ben says:

          why? give me one good answer.

          Reply
      • brian says:

        regardless of how you “feel”, you are allowed to go to alta. but there are rules about what equipment you can bring with you. the 14th amendment doesnt protect sports equipment choices. it protects classes of people, like “women” and “african americans”. for the record, its only just starting to protect “homosexuals”. “gay” is only barely considered a class of people worth protecting. do you really think that “people who choose to slide down mountains on one piece of wood rather than two” is up next?

        Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      Hiking and biking are two completely different activities. Snowboarding and skiing are nearly identical. It’s like saying quads are allowed, but dirtbikes aren’t. This comment is erroneous.

      Reply
    • Mathew says:

      The prior thumbs up/down system needs to be reinstated just for comments like this one

      Reply
    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      You’re can’t reasonably compare banning bicycles on hiking trails to snowboarding and skiing. Riding a bike is using a piece of equipment and hiking is using no equipment. A more realistic comparison would be banning the use of sneakers on a hiking trail and only allowing hiking boots.

      Reply
    • i like turtles says:

      So let me get this straight…. I can not drive a car in a bowling ally towards the pins?

      RIGHT….

      snowboarding is NOT a protected class of people. thus, No Discrimination….

      if you need an explanation of protected class please walk into any Burger King and look at the employment poster next to the time clock. They will be listed on it.

      I LIKE HAMBURGERS! and

      my crabs itch today

      Reply
  12. Haha says:

    Let it go gay trayers.

    Reply
  13. 2BuckTuck says:

    14th Amendment cases are long rows to hoe. Is Alta policy even government action? Are snowboarders a protected class? Are snowboarders sufficiently injured when so many other options exist on US Forest leases nearby? Does the discrimination have a basis that justifies it’s employment? Those are the merits. If the answer is no to even one of those questions, Plaintiff’s lose.

    Also, if deciding for plaintiffs violates Alta’s lease terms, does that create a takings case for Alta against the government? Judges don’t like rocking boat too much. Of course, the judge could be a boarder him/herself.

    I sympathize with boarders, but I am doubtful they will win. I am doubtful they’ll even get to the merits of their case. Best hope is to pressure the US Forest Service to exercise whatever leverage they have in their lease to effect a policy change.

    Reply
  14. Skier says:

    Alta has the right to say no snowboarding, the snowboarders can either ski if they want to use the land but no one is forcing them to snowboard at Alta. Alta has the right to refuse business even though it is on public land, but they can not refuse the land. Simply put, Alta can stay open to solely skiers, the snowboarders just won’t be able to use the amenities that Alta provides which is lawful.

    Reply
    • superboarder says:

      Of course no one is forcing us to snowboard at Alta. The point is they are forcing us to SKI at Alta, when we prefer to ride. Your reverse logic makes no sense.

      Reply
  15. B. says:

    By the retoric of have to be a skier to use the lift, but allowable use of a snowboard on the land, the result is simple. Again, splitboarding is the answer! Ride the lift in ski mode, snowplow off the lift, assemble and ride down. At the bottom, repeat… Without skins, changeover will be a minute or so, hah!

    Reply
  16. A says:

    Get over it, it’s one of three resorts in the US that doesn’t allow snowboarding. If it’s that big of a deal go create a snowboarder’s only mountain.

    Reply
  17. Chip Ripperson says:

    How did this law suit not happen earlier? No one realized it was violating a constitutional amendment? Or too busy shredding and smoking doobies in the woods?

    Reply
    • Duh says:

      Its not violating a constitutional amendment you moron. it will not go anywhere in court. BTW, why aren’t the 4 snowboarders named mentioned, lol.

      Reply
  18. chard says:

    Pretty smart tactics – they sent one guy up on a split-board separated as skis on the lift and when he tried to put them together after getting off the lift, ski patrol told him he had to leave. To people who don’t know skiing, this all comes off as arbitrary and unreasoned.

    Reply
    • thanks says:

      this ^^ two tips up

      Reply
    • brian says:

      agreed, its a pretty solid move. they asked him to leave for violating their rules on their lifts, but really it was based on their assumption that he was a snowboarder. theoretically (regardless of how insane it would be), he may have intended to ski down the mountain, which seems to imply he was on funny looking skis that connect to each other. of course he said he wanted to snowboard down, and since they cant restrict downhill traffic, their response was “ok. just dont get on a chairlift”. but it certainly goes a long way to highlighting a point

      Reply
    • Lonnie Utah says:

      Technically the told him he had to ride down his with his split board separated, which tips the argument back in favor of the resort in my eyes.

      Reply
  19. Matt says:

    so lift prices will go up because 4 people cant ride at another resort that allows snowboarding, wake up people the more the companies have to pay their lawyers for court cases the more WE have to pay for lift tickets

    Reply
    • chucky says:

      GOOD! If the price of lift passes at Alta goes up to cover legal fees, it would serve those ignorant bigots right!

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      You’re probably right Matt when all said and done those snowboarders will win their case, alta will lose money in legal fees and in turn raise cost of a lift ticket and in the end those boarders will probably only go to the mtn once

      Reply
  20. shuso says:

    What about Deer Valley…..

    Reply
  21. Anonymous says:

    glad i don’t live in utah and have to hear about this all the time. who fuckin cares

    Reply
  22. youguysareallstupid says:

    Umm who gives a fuck? I live in salt lake there is no reason to go to alta. Think of it this way…no park, a bunch of old gomers who are in you way constsantly , let them have the place. And hope someday they’ll open some sick snowboarder only mountain.

    Reply
  23. Duh says:

    Correction: liberal Snowboarders Sue Alta Ski Area & The US Forest Service For Violation Of The Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution.

    there. Fixed that headline for ya.

    Reply
  24. Esq says:

    Snowboarders are not a suspect class. It will be interesting to see how the plaintiff’s attorney will avoid a Rule 11 sanction for a frivolous action.

    Reply
  25. RandomBeater says:

    Bjorn Leines is a plantiff, would love to see that guy shredding Ulta!

    Reply
  26. Tvon says:

    Do they realize how hard it is to herringbone on a board, strapped-in up to backside? Alta would have to change that keep skis on policy. Is that what this is all about? Herringbone-heads with herringboners?

    Reply
    • Matt says:

      There is no ski on policy. Skiers boot hike up Mt Baldy to the chutes, up to Eddies High Nowhere, up the Devils Castle Apron, up the Shoulder from Wildcat Lift, up to the Catherines Pass traverse, among other spots.

      Reply
  27. AShotOfPow says:

    Whomever the plaintiffs are, they aren’t using their brains. What exactly do they want? If they want to use the lifts, they’ll lose. If they want to hike, they can already do that..

    Public Land – If they want to hike within the boundaries of Alta, they can legally do that.

    Private Lifts – If they want to use the lifts, and Alta sees fit to not allow Snowboarders on their private lifts, thats totally Altas prerogative.

    Reply
  28. Anonymous says:

    i love how alta people have the thought process of a racist southerner circa 1960.. if only they could pull they’re tiny little brains out of the gutter and figure out it is the 21st century and discrimination is about as cool as skiing

    Reply
    • brian says:

      comparing the restriction of certain winter sports equipment to the enslavement of a race of human beings is a very educated, well thought out approach

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      You’re just as discriminatory it seems.

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:

      And boarders want to insist that “skiers and boarders” get along yet you make comments like this? If skiing isn’t cool why then do you want to board with us? Do you think skiers would complain if there was a board only mountain? No. Boarders should stop being hypocritical. PS – I don’t hate boarders, just boarders who act like the skiers they proclaim to hate (“we’re better than you”)

      Reply
  29. thegeorge says:

    I think the issue here is that the policy banning snowboarding was arguably designed to “keep the riff raff out”, so to speak. The policy is, at its core, an implication that Alta does not want “the kind of people who snowboard” (read: you drug addled uncultured slackers with your baggy pants and your long hair) to use their hill basically because there are some people out there who’d rather not look at “those people” if they don’t have to.
    The ban on snowboarding is designed to keep a certain kind of people away from the mountain. It discriminates against the sport based on stereotypes about the people who do it. There are just as many shitty or unsightly people who ski as snowboard. It perpetuates intolerance and a lack of understanding between skiers and snowboarders where in reality we have more in common than not, first and foremost the enjoyment of sliding on snow.

    Reply
  30. waste of time says:

    they should have put all this money for the law suit towards building a snowboarding only mountain. don’t know why snowboarders really give a heck. pretty much like not being allowed into a gay club because you’re not gay. but i guess they probably still have cold beer.

    Reply
  31. Anonymous says:

    haha white person problems.

    Reply
  32. Brian Ahern says:

    Look at the statistics. Snowboarders are responsible for many more collisions with other mountain users than skiers. Mostly caused by wide backhand turns and not looking where they are going and usually wearing earpieces with loud music so they cannot hear people calling them to watch out.
    Also where T bars are involved 90% of boarders want to ride as a single, therefore doubling the length of ques, then to sit in the middle of the unload to fit their boards.
    Go open a snow boarder only resort. You wont get skiers complaining.

    Reply
    • Dan says:

      There’s 1 skier splayed all over the hill collecting gear and another not giving way to faster riders on a cat track for every snowboarder you’ve mentioned pal ;)

      90% single riders is full of shit though, at least in Australia. The beginner t-bars maybe close but not that high and all the rest are easily 90% of people riding doubles.

      And I’ve had many a snotty nosed skier refuse to t-bar with me, even though I’m a friendly guy and just being polite and trying to speed up the line.

      So again, for every snowboarder that people stereotype as a dope smoking rude jerk, there’s a pretentious rude dick of a skier to match them.

      The “us” and “them” argument really needs to shift to between “nice, normal, tolerant, people just there for a good time” and the “douchbags” no matter what flavor of snow enthusiast they are.

      Reply
    • Jimy says:

      Brian Ahern, could you please provide me with these statistics? I would love to see the research performed on number of skier/rider collisions.

      Thanks.

      Reply
    • suckittrebek says:

      So perhaps you should look at deer valley statistics… since it is a “skiers” only mountain….every season, they report more accidents than any other mountain in the wasatch due to ‘collision’ with another person resulting in injury….. you can find that on the National Ski Area Association website.

      Reply
      • That one dude says:

        I feel like it should be mentioned that most of the people at deer valley have no idea how to actually ski. Most of them are on vacation to ski a few runs and then sit at the lodge or downtown.

        Reply
    • Billy B. says:

      I once helped opened a snowboard only resort, It was called Snow’s Mtn, in Waterville Valley NH, we ran for three weeks as snowboard only…In till one busy weekend the mountain manager saw long lift lines at Waterville Valley, and opened Snow’s to skiiers, mind you it was a huge playground with banked turns jumps gaps and slides… in under one hour some skiier hit a jump and broke their back, we never opened again. I hope Alta loses, and I hope the skiiers with elitist attitudes get their comeuppances..

      Reply
    • brian says:

      there are no t-bars at alta. i dont think there are any in utah at all. also go ride wildcat at alta and TRY to find a steezy little pole-less ripper who isnt blasting music in their ears.

      i ski and i snowboard and i love alta and i dont have any desire to snowboard there. you are the kind of ignorant old man opinion that make the ban so easily attackable. why dont you just claim you hate snowboarders because of their baggy clothes?

      Reply
    • ski2fly says:

      You are worried about snowboarders effing up t-bar capacities? You need to get out more.

      Reply
  33. Al says:

    I am pretty sure Alta used to be privately owned land and mining claims that were donated to the forest service years ago.

    Reply
  34. Loski says:

    Have fun trying to sidestep up all those traverses and areas you need to hike to, on a snowboard…..NO bootpacks allowed on most of them.

    Reply
    • altablows says:

      really, no bootpacks? alta seems truly lame, it’s the only place i’ve snowboarded around where the skiers are still racist towards boarders. it also seems like where skiers learn to traverse everything and avoid skiing downhill at all costs, even when they travel away from alta. even when there’s no need to traverse. even when it’s obvious that there are people above them dropping in from the top of the mountain like they’re supposed to. if this sounds like you or anyone you know, please just stick to alta. especially since alta skiers do nothing but complain about boarders when they go elsewhere, even next door to snowbird.

      all that being said, even though alta is more like a lift-accessed cross country ski resort where you have to traverse for miles to get 10 turns which are ruined by more traverse lines since that’s all most alta skiers know how to do…… i think it would be absolutely hilarious if they were forced to allow snowboarding, just to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would ensue.

      Reply
      • you can't dirtbike on forest service trails sooooo haha says:

        its not racism— did you go to school? everyones allowed. last i checked a snowboard is a piece of equipment and not a person. *knowledge dropped*

        Reply
      • sarcasticmiss says:

        Yeah, Alta’s traverses lead to nowhere, the snow sucks, the skiers suck, the attitude sucks, the terrain sucks. Why would anyone want to ski and ride there? Everyone should just avoid the place it sucks SO bad.

        Reply
    • huh says:

      pessimistic fascist

      Reply
  35. Josh138 says:

    Why does alta have the ban anyway?

    Reply
  36. joe shmoe says:

    Snowboarding should suck my cock… twice.

    Reply
  37. Anonymous says:

    hahahahahaha, good luck! Fighting to snowboard ALTA is like fighting to Get AIDS… and im a skier

    Reply
    • brian says:

      im a skier and a snowboarder and i say open the place up to everyone. the reasons they had for starting the ban are completely irrelevant now. skiers are probably more “punk” than snowboarders these days anyway. and anyone who says “snowboards ruin the snow” apparently have never seen joe-dickhead from new jersey side slipping down main chute with two 186 skis on. find a snowboard that has 2 edges on each side and is 186cm long

      but after all the excitement of snowboarding alta dies down, it wouldnt take long to realize that snowboarding at alta SUCKS. once the thrill of the victory is over, you would probably see a pretty small sustained population of riders

      Reply
  38. 1 planker says:

    I ride Alta all the time. I simply access the area from the Bird……..

    Reply
    • brian says:

      the real money move is to get off baldy express, hike sugarloaf and then shred the castle area. neither resort will let you do it, but its way more fun than the shoulder

      Reply
  39. Alpine should ban snowboarders says:

    Alpine should go back to that

    Reply
  40. Snowbird rider says:

    Why would you want to ride a subpar mountain when a first class resort that allows anyone is right next door? If you want to go to alta, try skiing, it’s acually pretty awesome too.

    Reply
  41. Bates says:

    The irony is that snowboarders have a right to recreate in Alta, just not use the lifts or travel up hill. This guys have maybe a little bit too much time and ego on their hands.

    Reply
  42. Eddieshi says:

    Last year the Alta Marshall was giving tickets to snowboarders who came over from Snowbird on the last day of the season. Essentially barring them from public Forest Service land. And they don’t allow uphill traffic on that same Forest Service land. So there is definitely discrimination going on.

    Reply
    • you can't dirtbike on forest service trails sooooo haha says:

      anyone is allowed to ride at alta, just not with a snowboard. it’s like not allowing dirtbikes on national park trails or allowing a high powered paintball guns in a paintball arena. everyones allowed, just not certain equipment.

      Reply
    • sarcasticmiss says:

      Do you know anything? The Alta Marshal was certainly NOT giving tickets to boarders. They were simply there in case things “got out of hand” per request of the Alta Ski Area. The electronic gates between Alta and Snowbird at the top of Baldy Express is where the “blockade” was and you have to be on skis to go though them. In the past Alta has turned a blind eye to boarders coming through there, but the last day of 2012 some people got a little too “boisterous” for the likes of the Alta Patrol and Alta’s GM, unfortunately this lead to the lock down last year. Snowboarders were and are more than welcome through all other gates between the resorts and I know many who still made it to the High Boy party.

      Reply
    • this says:

      And that is all the evidence this case needs… fuck alta.. fuck utards… free the snow for everyone to enjoy !

      Reply
  43. Anonymous says:

    About time! I cant wait to stuff this shit in the face of all you pretentious skiers. You know I will make the trip when that lift finally opens.

    Reply
  44. Huck Dynasty says:

    If history has taught us anything it’s that thee who has the largest bankroll, wins! Good luck to both sides. Personally, I wouldn’t want to ride there …The less skiers the better!

    Reply
  45. Anonymous says:

    lol you can use the land like everyone else. Just put on a pair of skis… this is dumb

    Reply
  46. Sick bird says:

    I’m not sure what all the skiers suck, snowboarders suck comments are about. Everyone knows snowblades are the shit. Skiing and snowboarding suck equally.

    Reply
  47. Andy in CO says:

    Boarders should have every right to rip Alta just like the skiers. Hope this gains some momentum.

    Andy
    Skier

    Reply
  48. Twintip4life says:

    I cut back on snowboarding because I did not like the attitude being pretrade by some of the boarders. So I started skiing and with what I’m reading all the skiers are no better in their actions. Skiers if you are going to continue saying boarders cut the snow up or plow to much wake the hell up and look at every beginner or crap skier out there. They cut snow up and plow just as bad, so get off your high horse and stop being a pain in the ass. It’s people like you that hold society back.

    Reply
  49. Anonymous says:

    Us
    Mountains
    Suck .stupid
    Rules .
    Canada can do what they want when they want
    I ski and board because I am aloud

    Reply
  50. Yerefd says:

    So if you had a sled you could then just ride it all over the land or no!?! The snowboarders wouldn’t have to use the privately owned lifts then!!

    Reply
  51. Andy P says:

    Hummm,
    Touchy subject.
    Well.. As we know Deer Valley has the same policy, and i kinda like it. I obviously don’t like the fact snowboarders are ‘Band’. But, I feel it actually provides a service to Park City.
    You see, there are still some individuals out there that have an ‘old fashioned’ or ‘narrow minded’ way of thinking. They still think of the early days of snowboarding, when snowboards were hard to control. Now technology has changed for both sports, making them safer with improved maneuverability.
    Deer Valley is providing a place where these individuals can ski, feeling extra safe and privileged. The other local resorts (Canyons, and PCMR) allow any snow lover to have fun. So it removes the haters to there own private area. So i say Have your own resorts. Keeps the haters out of mine. Why can’t we all just get along.

    Reply
    • ski2fly says:

      Good god, you ski at Deer Valley and you can’t even spell the work “banned” correctly? WTF is going on in this world?

      Reply
  52. AAASFA says:

    Stop Snowcism now! Join the American Association of Americans for a snowcist free America!

    Reply
  53. rileseven says:

    If you pay rent to a landlord does that give the landlord the right to tell you how to run your business? No. Alta pays rent. Government can’t tell them how to run their business. Any judge that would rule in favor of the snowboarders would be responsible for the biggest change in American business in history. Stupid lawsuit. Stupid issue. People are confusing issues misidentifying laws and otherwise misunderstanding this whole story. Once public land is leased the lessor has rights to the property. If you want it to be public again then dont renew the lease and close the business.

    Reply
    • yep yep says:

      the day i poached deer valley was one of the best of my life… this argument is so tired! Let Alta go bankrupt through a lawsuit, and i’ll contribute to that demise through my donation to the suit !!

      Reply
  54. anonymous says:

    Snowbird is better anyway!!!

    Reply
  55. There should be Snowboard only resorts. Just to prove the point that separating the two sports is ridiculous and just perpetuates dissension.

    The closest I have witnessed is the private snowboard only camp on Mount Hood, High Cascade Snowboard Camp. I love when a skier dips through the gate or under the rope. The dude dons’t get three feet before he gets chased down by the diggers and jeered at by the campers, it’s awesome.

    Reply
  56. jim says:

    i ski but have no problem with riders. if a national park on the coast decided that only surfers could hit the waves and ban boogy boarders it would seem silly and illegal. what’s the dif here?

    Reply
    • your an idiot says:

      At certain beaches they try and have no people riding standup paddleboards, so they have some surf beaches and SUP beaches. Similar situation, no big deal, go ride somewhere else, there are many much better resorts for snowboarders.

      Reply
  57. Julie Willis says:

    For those using the word “facist” and “nazi”…really??? Review your history…or read it for the first time and then tell me that you are being bullied, tortured and murdered for your “beliefs.” Alta is for happy people.

    fascist |ˈfaSHist|
    noun
    an advocate or follower of fascism.
    adjective
    of or relating to fascism: a military coup threw out the old fascist regime.
    DERIVATIVES
    fascistic |faˈSHistik|adjective
    fascism |ˈfaSHˌizəm|(also Fascism )

    noun
    an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
    The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
    ORIGIN from Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group,’ from Latin fascis (see fasces) .

    nazi
    Nazi |ˈnätsē|
    noun ( pl. Nazis ) historical
    a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    • a member of an organization with similar ideology.
    • derogatory a person who holds and acts brutally in accordance with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
    The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after World War I. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government and developed a racist ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of “Aryan” Germans. Its charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in 1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship, rearmed Germany in support of expansionist foreign policies in central Europe, and thus precipitated World War II. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the war and was outlawed in Germany.
    adjective
    of or concerning the Nazis or Nazism.
    DERIVATIVES
    Nazidom |-dəm|noun,
    Nazify |ˈnätsiˌfī|verb ( Nazifies, Nazifying, Nazified ) ,
    Naziism |-ˌizəm|noun,
    Nazism |ˈnätˌsizəm|noun
    ORIGIN German, abbreviation representing the pronunciation of Nati- in Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist.’

    Reply
  58. Anonymous says:

    Without skiing there is no snowboarding. But with out snowboarding skiing would not have seen the progression in the sport is has. I think a few new Olympic sports that involve skis are a direct effect of snowboards and the events they compete in the Olympics. (Half pipe/ slope style) Open your eyes everyone. It’s 2014. We can all ride together!

    Reply
    • thanks says:

      two tips up ^^ for this comment

      Reply
    • Kenny says:

      Without snowboarding skiing would have died in the 70s like it was doing except snowboarding saved the ski industrie also we made slop style half pipe handrails all this shit that you guys had no imagination to do in 75years we did in 25.

      Reply
  59. EMJ says:

    No mexicans or blacks at our mountain, if you want to be there and your black or mexican, all you have to do is paint your face white and youll be good. Classic case of discrimination against snowboarders, if you wanna go to alta just ski. Fuck you Alta.

    Reply
    • you can't dirtbike on forest service trails sooooo haha says:

      snowboards aren’t people they’re equipment. by equating this to racism you not only undermine your own argument but insult those who actually fight racism

      Reply
    • P-Dog says:

      Except that blacks and Mexicans and every other class of person is allowed to ski at Alta. So there goes that argument. Thanks for playing though. Linda has some nice departing gifts for you backstage.

      Reply
  60. Kenny says:

    Number 1 it’s not the same as a biker being on a hiking trail those two activities use none of the same things nor are alike. this shits more like racism in the since that your banning somebody based off a board or 2 skies or 50years ago black or white. The funny thing is most skiers don’t even know why they ski they don’t know the history of it nor do they care there just preppy db’s withs there noses up in the air looking for a status with there new 1500$ skies. All I got to say if your really up on the mountain to ski and live that life the last thing you care about are snowboarders cause you know where all up there for the same reasons to have a good time and grow in nature not to hate on people. Grow up alta

    Reply
  61. Q says:

    Have fun on all the treverses everywhere,

    Reply
  62. Anonymous says:

    Snowboarding is Americas’ contribution to the European sport of Skiing. Just like Mountain Bikes are Americas’ contribution to bicycling. As Americans you should be proud of these innovative sports. Football comes from Rugby and Baseball comes from Cricket, Snowboarding comes from Skiing. What’s the problem?

    Reply
  63. Haha says:

    Snowboarders are allowed to go to alta, they just have to snowlerblade

    Reply
  64. you can't dirtbike on forest service trails sooooo haha says:

    1. alta would be awful for snowboarders– all the best runs are via traverse and hiking and 2. the whole argument is that they’re not allowing certain individuals on the mountain– anyones allowed on the mountain you just can’t snowboard on it. it’s like suing the forest service for not allowing motorized vehicles on trails and claiming dirt bikes are a kind of people

    Reply
  65. Sunny says:

    Really this pisses me off come on you fucks. Really these boarders have to sue Alta for something that has been this way for years. Stop being fucking so american Suing people. Get over it. Go ride brighton or the bird. Maybe I should sue these fucks.

    Reply
  66. Me says:

    If you take the “person” out of it and look at the activity would they have the same outlook. Snowmobile, tubing, snowshoe, are also not allowed on slopes at any resort. The combined activity would not work on the same slopes.

    Reply
  67. Danimal says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about being a pain in some entitled opinionated assholes. BUT! I myself am pretty content that there are still 2 resorts in Utah that is like a Zoo keeper for all the monkeys out there who’s brains are under devoloped and haven’t evovled with the times yet. (Since Nazi and Fascist seem to make your buttholes tight ill settle for monkies) Skier monkeys out there that genuinely hate snowboarders do not deserve to share a resort with HUMANS who are accepting and appreciative of the simple fact that WE ALL LOVE SNOW and that we even have mountains to play on! Let them have Alta. Cause we have Snowbird; who’s terrian cannot be beat(bird is the word), Brighton; that’s got the most laid back friendly environment around, Canyons; that’s got adventures for days, and Park City; who’s got a terrain park that would make anyone shit themselves. If Alta lets boarders in, then all the ski monkeys will ruin everyone else’s good time by picking under developed monkey brain fights. I say keep the ski monkeys confined. Where we know just where to find them and annoy them. However; if per chance this sueing business works… they should have to change management and the name of the resort because Altas not recieving a dime of my support. Alta resort and its supporters are about as pathetic as watching a trex try and make his bed. This shouldn’t even be an issue.

    Reply
  68. curmudgeon says:

    Being from the midwest I have to travel to ride in the mountains. In the end it will come down to how much money is an organization willing to lose before they allow snowboarding. I have not touched Alta yet in my travels. I ski. My traveling partners are boarders. So I stick to Snowbird when booking trips. When Alta rescinds the ban, they will no doubt get my lodging, booze, food and lift ticket dollars too. I hope they do. I just like to ski with friends in the mountains and my friends ride boards.

    Reply
  69. Sean says:

    First world problem, no wait, 1%er first world problems…

    This might get alot of support, but I don’t think Skull Candy has enough money to waste on frivolous litigation.

    Reply
  70. If says:

    If alta is concerned about the snowboarder stereotype lifestyle, then just make the rules more strict and clear for what behavior is or isn’t allowed. If alta still has the stereotype of snowboarders side slip everywhere, then I think a lot of skiers should be banned too.

    Overall with the baby boomer generation getting older (who are mostly not snowboarders) and beginning to be unable to ski aggressively (ie sticking more to groomers) or stop going to ski areas in general, it would be a poor business decision by alta to eliminate a revinue stream with a major portion of the population aging and beginning to reevaluate how the ski and how they spend money.

    Reply
  71. CB says:

    Who cares Alta is flat anyways

    Reply
  72. smellingwherethisisgoing says:

    This would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the only guy who wins is the lawyer. I’m betting that the lawyer is secretly a skier who will be willing to settle the suit if he quietly gets a lifetime pass as Alta. As a skier I welcome boarders to ride anything. That said, why do boarders care so much? The Bird is the better side of the mountain anyway.

    Reply
  73. freedom rider says:

    I love this shit. We will get to the promised land someday brothers and sisters !

    Reply
  74. stephen says:

    I am a skier and i like snowbird better, i dont get why the boarders cant just stay there

    Reply
  75. Chris says:

    This is great – can’t wait to ride my 14th amendment protected equal rights snowmobile right up every run at Alta – thanks snowboarders, awesome !!

    Reply
    • Beavis says:

      Your analysis leaves much to be desired . A snowboard is in the same class as a snowmobile? Obviously you have a poor critical thinking skills.

      Reply
  76. Snwboard4life says:

    All these selfish skiers only care about themselfs. Maybe if snowbird did not allow skiing all you big headed skiers would understand. Why can’t everyone enjoy evey mountain. It’s about being a real person. It’s not what you ride it’s the attitude you have on the mountain. No one gets until they don’t allow something they want. Understand skiers we have every right to snowboard any where we want.

    Reply
    • P-Dog says:

      Nah, we would just ski Alta. Might be a touch jealous looking into Mineral Basin knowing I couldn’t hit it, but then I’d head on over to the High Traverse and hit Eagles Nest and forget all about it. Skiis don’t suffer from buthurt.

      Reply
  77. Justjamesbitch says:

    Regardless of what happens my goal in life is to ski Alta; Yes thats correct ski…… With a pair of assless chaps on and a severe case of the Hershey Squirts.

    Reply
  78. Anonymous says:

    Find something more important to argue about.

    Reply
  79. Anonymous says:

    Pretty interesting debate here. But let’s get down to the bottom line, and address some of the arguments -

    1. Skiing and snowboarding in it’s essence are the same damn thing. The equipment is almost identical in every way. The only real difference is the number of planks and the direction you slide. Do they allow Lib Tech NAS on the hill? Those are narrow snowboards.

    2. It isn’t racism, fascism, or nazism to not allow snowboarding. However, it is discrimination (and based on outdated stereotypes) being practiced on public land funded by tax dollars paid by everyone. If it was on privately owned land, it wouldn’t be an issue.

    3. As long as you can safely get down the hill and obey the responsibility code, there’s no reason why skis should be allowed and snowboards shouldn’t.

    To some of the various arguments against integration-

    “You can come to Alta – you just have to ski.”
    Not everyone skis, wants to ski, or knows how to ski. If you buy a lift ticket to access the terrain, you should be able to slide on it in whichever way will be the most safe and enjoyable to you.

    “Snowboarders can’t make the traverses and ride the terrain anyway.”
    That is a pretty broad and subjective statement. There are plenty of snowboarders who can traverse just as well as most skiers. Even if they can’t, that’s their burden and nothing you should be worried about. More pow for you. There’s plenty of people that just want to cruise groomers anyway.

    “Well they don’t let bikes on hiking trails / snowmobiles on the resort.”
    You can’t reasonably make this comparison. Snowboards are nearly identical to skis and are not mechanized. The rate and general direction of travel are the same. A more accurate comparison would be only allowing hiking boots on a trail, but banning hiking shoes.

    “Why don’t you just go to Snowbird?”
    Some snowboarders do go to Snowbird. But some would also like to try out Alta. Imagine that.

    “Why don’t snowboarders just open their own mountain and only allow snowboarding?”
    Besides the fact that it’s incredibly expensive and usually not financially lucrative to open a private resort, not everybody is selfish and unwilling to share. Believe it or not, many skiers and snowboarders are actually friends with one another.

    “The Constitution only protects kinds of people, not equipment.”
    I don’t think the Constitution addresses this particular issue, but if a corporation is a person, and money is speech, than I’d say there is plenty of grey area for loose definitions.

    Reply
  80. i like turtles says:

    WHO GIVES 2 SHITS,

    look. ALTA does not want snowboarders money, why do you want to force them to take it? NO ONE IS SPECIAL, (unless deemed so under the constitution).
    nobody better lay a hand on my bulging crotch, it is inflamed and a rash has started over this matter.

    Reply
  81. P-Dog says:

    Alta already allows snowboarding. It’s called Snowbird. Same snow, same mountains. Other than trying to settle some long held grudge, you really have nothing to gain. The easily accessible (to boarders) areas of Alta pale in comparison the the Bird.

    Reply
  82. Anonymous says:

    You can have Alta!
    Seriously, if/when they allow the sport that made skiing cool again I could give a shiot…in fact it would be like going to a restaurant with shitty service and begging them for a table: why bother, if service sucks and no respect I couldn’t even imagine how shitty the day on your ego mountain would be.
    Heck Alta should also discriminate Fat Skis…they are wanna be snowboards to make skiing easier…. Grow up ski industry.
    You can have Utah utah. And stay there with your skinny skis.

    Reply
  83. Wildcat says:

    We all know that snowboarding is gay unless you go by the name of Jeremy Jones or Travis Rice! Go Alta!

    Reply
  84. #Bothwayssince5thgrade says:

    Im a man of both ways and i believe Snowboarders are dumb. Keep it OG

    Reply
  85. lawschoolgrad says:

    Ive been graduated from law school for some years now and have seen many cases tried and both sides have valid arguments but the truth of the matter is the plaintiffs have the stronger argument so sorry to all you skiers but Alta. is gonna be forced to allow snowboarders to ride the mountain or be forced to close down

    Reply
  86. SanTranum says:

    I just did a poach run today,… all because of this! I took Baldy-express from Snowbird. (which had some nice powder runs earlier), and entered Alta. The lift agent at the shack told me I couldn’t board there and ordered me back to the Bird. I protested and asked her what would happen if I did board Alta as this was my last run of the day. She shrugged her shoulders in confusion. I immediately pushed on and make my run! a few skiers lobbed some words. “Hey man, you must we for equal rights on the slopes”. Another skier, “Poaching Alta for your last day ride, nice”. At the bottom and had my beer at the Goldminner’s Daughter. No one seemed to care. But really Alta is not good for snowboarding.

    Reply
  87. tgp says:

    I want to snowmobile on ALTA slopes, since it is public land I should be able to and the skiers will just have to get out of my way

    Reply

Trackbacks for this post

  1. FOX News Covers Snowboarders Lawsuit Against Alta Ski Area & US Forest Service
  2. Forest Service Asks Federal Judge To Dismiss Snowboarders Lawsuit Against Alta

Leave a Comment