Powder's response to the Alta is for Racists video

get split board

go to collins lift line

split board attach skins

turn around

cross 210

skin up to ridge

leisurley enjoy safety break while watching 100's of agrro traverse monkey, scrubbing bubbles fight for pow

sd098.jpg


deskin attach board

shred untracked pow

repeat till late april

then hit Alta

or sit home and make butthurt edits
 
its their property, they can choose who they want to have on it.
its like if someone wanted to come onto your property and you told them not to. (doesn't matter the reason which could be right or wrong) either way its what they say its theirs. period
 
this is false.

please dont post if you don't know what youre talking about.

alta is on public land of the Utah National Forest.
 
ive always thought snowbird and brighton especially had the easiest to access terrain while alta did not.
everything at brighton is easily accessible. high t on milly toward mt. preston, snake bowl, hidden bowl. I found it all to be very easy to get to.
and in an off topic argument i do agree with the posters who feel boarders clean out chutes faster. this needs to be proven by setting up a camera on equal pow days and recording the same boarder and skier hitting the same run and having third parties comment on the condition of the snow and the riders themselves comment on how many runs everything holds up before it turns sketch.
 
on skis.

i see countless snowboarders having to walk said traverses. once they're walking, whats the difference what the traverse is?

im done in this thread.
 
As you know you can't always pass everyone in every spot.
Hiking is different. Walkin on a track I can just slide right across is stupid.
 
so your point is that because you're impatient, they shouldnt be allowed to expend exponentially more effort to get to the same spot?

obviously on a traverse thats downhill, they dont have to walk, but when you're on a side-step traverse, whats the difference if they're walking and you're essentially walking with your skis on?
 
the funny thing is, there's absolutely no rule against snowboarding on alta's terrain, just against riding their lifts. ride over from the bird all you want, i have tons of homies who work at the peruvian lodge (at alta) who shred alta's terrain on the way home every damn day. ask any alta/bird patroller, they'll tell you what's up. this whole argument is silly.
 
its not about snowboards not being able to traverse, its not about skiers being better than snowboarders, its not about racisim or discrimination nor boarders scraping the snow away. Its about tradition and the fact that alta is not in debt unlike 95 percent of other ski areas selling to only skiers. There is a reason they are called SKI AREAS because most of the opened up when SKIING was the only sport and alta opened in 1938.

Because a mountain can sell enough SKI lift tickets, and SKI lessons to post profit every single year, and buy new day lodges, 400,000 dollar snow cats and lifts CASH pretty much says that nothing is fucked and to keep the tradition alive.

I just lucked out that i grew up enjoying skiing 100 percent more than snowboarding. Plus boarders would and do enjoy brighton ten times more.

Instead of bitching that there is actually a SKI resort keeping it real, get a pass to one of the 3 other resorts that are 3 miles or less away from alta.

 
^Yeah the only reason Alta remains a skiers mountain is purely a business decision. They have been doing things the same way for over 75 years without any real financial issues and staying true a tradition. At the same time if you think that allowing snowboarders wouldnt completely fuck up traverses, and side step lines like when the castle opens you have clearly never been to alta. Alta just isnt conducive to snowboarders in so many ways and with always be a skiers mountain.
 
Yea, last time I was at alta, I saw 10+ snowboarders that took some laps down the shoulder and through bad news to the bottom. I don't remember seeing that many dudes doing it when I had a pass there, I guess it's gotten more popular.
 
if Alta is a bunch of Nazi's why aren't the snowboard allies landing on their beaches and trying to take over the Nazi advancement? They need to start bombing Alta and remove the Nazi leaders and break down their supply chains and destroy their morale....then they can release all the snowboarders from the camps at brighton and snowbird and allow them to live peacefully at Alta...Sounds like the snowboarders are just sitting back and letting these atrocities to be committed by the Nazis....
 
take your own advice, ski areas operating on national forest lease the land, it's theirs for the winter
 
Nothing against snowboarding but i'd be pissed if Alta stopped being a skiers only mountain. Purely because it would be just like that fucking zoo down the road they call snowbird, packed to the fucking brim.
 
i was up at alta once this year and i could not escape the fucking moguls.....let the boarders in to that shit to shred that shit out/off
 
i bet alta would lose more money from skiers leaving than they'd make from boarders coming. i'd leave if they opened it up
 
nice one fuckhead.

lease does not mean you own.

i was commenting on the other kid claiming that since they own it, its theirs to do as they wish, so i wanted to make sure he realized that they do not infact own that property.

when you lease a car from a dealership, you cant do fully as you please with said car, as it is not your property.

 
and if you really want to, one could delve in to the fact that if you live in utah, your tax dollars pay for the maintenance of that public land. So how is it fair for them to be paying for something that they're not even allowed to use?
 
All I know is that I'd be frustrated if the discrimination worked in reverse.

I don't make those calls. But I have reservations about supporting someplace that propagates (even privately, with their own land) a discrimination that I would chafe under.
 
This is a serious rarity, but I agree with you 100% :)
Anyone who is hurt over it and makes it an issue only goes to prove Alta's point. I will say that the video is out of line. Sure, some can insist it is a joke. But, I guarantee no one who was alive during WWII or earlier would see it as a joke. Literally, no one. Joking about millions of people murdered by comparing that to the playground of the wealthy? Yeesh.
 
I hope in this response your somewhat referring to my last post....I also its stupid how far they are going with the Nazi thing hahah...
If snowboarders wanted to make a real rant again Alta they would be on this level

/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
I was commenting on you claiming that since it's national forest you can do anything you like. So I just wanted to make sure you realized that Alta does in fact make the rules while they pay for use of the land.

 
Although tax revenue does go to national and local public lands, the ski resort itself is paying to lease the land as well, and they are probably paying a significant amount. I don't know the specifics of Alta, but I have never heard of any sort of lease where the leasee does not pay for the land. But this means they can use it how they wish within the limits of their contract. I would imagine that Alta has a longterm lease that goes back much further than snowboarding's existence, so you won't find anything mandating they would allow it (not that the Forest Service or whatever land bureau would specify that anyway).
Now this issue doesn't really affect me in any way whatsoever, but I just thought you were being a bit biased or reaching with this point. I work at a resort (non skiing related) on forest service land in the Tahoe area, and I can tell you the annual lease fee well covers any "maintenance" in the immediate vicinity.
 
can you read? when did i ever say that?

this is exactly what i said-

this is false.

please dont post if you don't know what youre talking about.

alta is on public land of the Utah National Forest.

-all i was saying is that the property isnt OWNED by alta. I never said anything about doing anything you like because its a national forest.

 
Being from Norway, I'm surprised to hear about Alta and their ski-only policy, is this Alta only or are there other similiar resorts? While I don't necessarily agree with the policy, I think it's a shame that these people have to play the racist card to get their views on matter out in the open. I find it distasteful as racism is a serious thing and they are trying to use it for shock and awe on such a (let's be honest) trivial matter.
 


A

lot depends upon the terms and conditions of the lease. So long as

the terms are satisfied Alta can exclude snowboarders.

I

don't agree with the policy but these idiots (such as whoever made

this video) will help to change my mind.
 
So a lease is a contract in which a party pays a fee to another for the ability to utilize an asset owned by the other party.

The asset in Alta's case, is the terrain. The lifts and infrastucture are owned entirely by Alta. The terrain is Forest Land. If you want to hike up and snowboard on 100% natural terrain that has not recieved any man-made attention in any way, you are free to do so.

Fact is though, the second you ride a lift or step foot onto terrain that has had trails cut, avalanche control work done, snowmaking or any other man-made attention by Alta, you are using ALTA's product, and they have the right to dictate who they market their product to.
 
alta and deer valley both do not allow boarders
making 2 of the 9 resorts within 1 hour drive of the SLC airport not boarder friendly.
 
you are the dumbest person ive ever seen on this website. go back and look what i wrote. i NEVER said what you are stating i said.

all i said was that alta is on public land.

NEVER did i say that since its a national park, you can do whatever you want on it.
 
Then I ask, what exactly are you implying by saying that Alta is on public land? What is the purpose of you telling us that?

Not being an asshole, but what is your goal? If it wasn't to imply that because it is public land, everyone should be able to use it, then what was the goal?
 
you lease a car, and you might not be able to put a supercharger under the hood, but you can certainly choose not give rides to snowboarders.
 
Plus, if you lease the car with the express understanding that you get to choose and install the engine and drivetrain, you certainly get to choose who you give rides to.
 
jesus christ.

all you have to do is read the thread.

one kid stated that alta owned the property.

ALL i was trying to clear up, was informing him that they do NOT in fact own the property.

i really dont understand what is so hard about this.
 
What's so hard about this is that we are all having a hard time believing that your sole intention was to say that Alta was leased land and that you were in no way trying to imply that everyone should be able to use Alta on whatever equipment they so desire.
 
what? what the fuck are you even talking about. how can you put so many words in my mouth with me saying all of 5 words?

MY SOLE INTENTION WAS FOR THE CHILD THAT MADE THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT ALTA OWNING THE PROPERTY, TO HAVE HIS FACTS STRAIGHT

its that clear. that simple.

and "we are all" consists of yourself and some other shithead that is trying to be a smart ass.

i find it funny how you started your first comment with "not trying to be an asshole," when you're clearly trying to be an asshole.
 
This. It's not that difficult, no resort should be able to do that when in reality we are all out there for the same reasons. I get frustrated when i am stuck behind a snowboarder but i deal with it and let him get of to the side so i can scoot by.
 
You seriously were not trying to imply anything through the stating of Alta leasing, not owning? I'll stop prodding once you openly admit that you have an agenda in regards to the issue.

I'd have more respect for your opinion, even if I think it is completely wrong, if you were at least open with it.

I also find it ironic that you are getting bent over someone respectfully challenging you when you've been condescending and douchey the entire thread. Starting a post off with "fuck-face" does nothing to further your point.
 
Problem is that you are in fact putting words in his mouth. Regardless of you being convinced that he has an agenda, you have to relate to what he says, not what you think he is saying. If it was the other way around, arguing any point would be impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top