There are three resorts in the United States that do not allow snowboarding. They are: Deer Valley and Alta in Utah, and Mad River Glen in Vermont. New York-based Extell is also developing a new resort next to Deer Valley that was previously known as the Mayflower Resort. For a while, it was up in the air whether they would allow snowboarders, but this past summer it was announced that it will become part of Deer Valley and that their snowboarding ban will remain firmly in place.
As a snowboarder, I'm not overly fussed by this. There are, of course, lots of other places that will welcome my kind. But I do think it's both interesting and worth poking fun at. It speaks to the tribal-like nature of humans. I get down the mountain on this device and you get down the mountain on that device. So we are fundamentally different humans. And I do not want to associate with you. At the same time, I do respect the ability for private resorts to make their own decisions. And this seems to be what their paying customers want.
But what about if the resort happens to be on public land? Does that make things any different? Deer Valley sits on land that is privately owned; whereas Alta sits on land that is owned by the National Forest Service. Which is why in 2014, a bunch of cantankerous snowboarders
There are three resorts in the United States that do not allow snowboarding. They are: Deer Valley and Alta in Utah, and Mad River Glen in Vermont. New York-based Extell is also developing a new resort next to Deer Valley that was previously known as the Mayflower Resort. For a while, it was up in the air whether they would allow snowboarders, but this past summer it was announced that it will become part of Deer Valley and that their snowboarding ban will remain firmly in place.
As a snowboarder, I'm not overly fussed by this. There are, of course, lots of other places that will welcome my kind. But I do think it's both interesting and worth poking fun at. It speaks to the tribal-like nature of humans. I get down the mountain on this device and you get down the mountain on that device. So we are fundamentally different humans. And I do not want to associate with you. At the same time, I do respect the ability for private resorts to make their own decisions. And this seems to be what their paying customers want.
But what about if the resort happens to be on public land? Does that make things any different? Deer Valley sits on land that is privately owned; whereas Alta sits on land that is owned by the National Forest Service. Which is why in 2014, a bunch of cantankerous snowboarders
, claiming that its ski-only policy violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer, but I am told that this is typically used in cases involving discrimination.
Alta ultimately won the case. They argued that even though the land they sit on is public, their lifts are still private. And so they get to decide who uses them. I guess that's fair. But at the same time, this technically means that snowboarders are allowed on the mountain, they just can't use any of the lifts. I tried to confirm this fact with Alta on X the other day, but they have yet to respond.
Snowboarding is a relatively young sport. It grew massively in popularity during the 1990s (which is when I switched over from skiing), and so its participants tend to skew younger (my assumption). This is probably why fancy resorts like Deer Valley don't feel the need to cater to them. However, young people tend to both grow up and, you know, make more money. And so at some point -- when there's a real business imperative -- we may find that people suddenly change their minds.
If you're trying desperately to sell luxury condominiums at the base of a resort and if snowboarders keep showing up at your sales office, for how long will you continue to say no to their money?
, claiming that its ski-only policy violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer, but I am told that this is typically used in cases involving discrimination.
Alta ultimately won the case. They argued that even though the land they sit on is public, their lifts are still private. And so they get to decide who uses them. I guess that's fair. But at the same time, this technically means that snowboarders are allowed on the mountain, they just can't use any of the lifts. I tried to confirm this fact with Alta on X the other day, but they have yet to respond.
Snowboarding is a relatively young sport. It grew massively in popularity during the 1990s (which is when I switched over from skiing), and so its participants tend to skew younger (my assumption). This is probably why fancy resorts like Deer Valley don't feel the need to cater to them. However, young people tend to both grow up and, you know, make more money. And so at some point -- when there's a real business imperative -- we may find that people suddenly change their minds.
If you're trying desperately to sell luxury condominiums at the base of a resort and if snowboarders keep showing up at your sales office, for how long will you continue to say no to their money?
