Yup...all in good fun....

ski_resort_observer wrote:

Yup...all in good fun....

What's your point? That they are a business trying to make money and attract customers? Their own unique way? In a manner that maybe not everyone agrees with? With a dedicated following? How dare they!

Can you imagine if a ski area did this?

I wonder how you'd feel if someone paid a bunch of people to go into your house, uninvited, and film themselves having a party?

Say, if you didn't like smoking, and a tobacco company paid people to film themselves smoking in your place?

Lostone wrote:

I wonder how you'd feel if someone paid a bunch of people to go into your house, uninvited, and film themselves having a party? Say, if you didn't like smoking, and a tobacco company paid people to film themselves smoking in your place?

People don't WANT to come to my house to smoke. Not even close to the same thing. I will say this though - it's strange to me that a place will make a policy to keep a certain group of people out, and they are one of only a handful of places who do so, and then expect there won't be any animosity towards them, or that those excluded won't be upset. Last I checked we live in the US of A and snowboarders have just as much right to be upset and protest peacefully (you remember that, don't you Lostone? ) as MRG has to exclude them

Look, I'm not going to get into a big back and forth about this...AGAIN. I may or may not go after the $$...probably won't have the time or resources. You got complaints - take 'em to Burton.

Peace out.

sugarboarder wrote:

ski_resort_observer wrote: Yup...all in good fun.... What's your point? That they are a business trying to make money and attract customers? Their own unique way? In a manner that maybe not everyone agrees with? With a dedicated following? How dare they! Can you imagine if a ski area did this?

To be honest I'm worried this might result in hostile confrontations at the 4 hills and people will get hurt. That's my point. BTW, just so you know, by their choice all my kids are riders and I have been a big supporter of the sport. According to the NSAA last season 28% of the lift tiks purchased were riders so it's a very important piece of the snowsport resort business overall.

ski_resort_observer wrote:

According to the NSAA last season 28% of the lift tiks purchased were riders so it's a very important piece of the snowsport resort business overall.

Wow! Only 28%? That seems low...but FWIW I have noticed that in the past few years I see fewer and fewer snowboarders than before....but maybe that is because I ski at places which are still skier mountains (such as Burke, SB, Pico). I noticed, except the last two days, that a WIDE majority of the people at SB were skiers.

ski_resort_observer wrote:

According to the NSAA last season 28% of the lift tiks purchased were riders so it's a very important piece of the snowsport resort business overall.

SRO, which NSAA report was that from?

BushMogulMaster wrote:

ski_resort_observer wrote: According to the NSAA last season 28% of the lift tiks purchased were riders so it's a very important piece of the snowsport resort business overall. SRO, which NSAA report was that from?

It was stated in a post at snowjournal.com. I too thought that it was kinda low but I don't have any data to confirm or discount it. If you want I think I can find it and post a link to it. I did see some figures awhile back that showed it's basically split 50/50 regarding skier/rider days with a slight up tick in skiers the last couple of years

ski_resort_observer wrote:

BushMogulMaster wrote: ski_resort_observer wrote: According to the NSAA last season 28% of the lift tiks purchased were riders so it's a very important piece of the snowsport resort business overall. SRO, which NSAA report was that from? It was stated in a post at snowjournal.com. I too thought that it was kinda low but I don't have any data to confirm or discount it. If you want I think I can find it and post a link to it. I did see some figures awhile back that showed it's basically split 50/50 regarding skier/rider days with a slight up tick in skiers the last couple of years

As I posted on AZ, as of post-2006 season, actual number of participants are as follows: boarders: 5.2MM, skiers: 6.4MM.

Interesting.

Last year I met a kid on a lift at Bretton Woods I think, probably 15 or 16 yo, and he said he used to ride but switched to skiing because everyone was riding and it had gotten old hat.

Quote:

I will say this though - it's strange to me that a place will make a policy to keep a certain group of people out, and they are one of only a handful of places who do so, and then expect there won't be any animosity towards them, or that those excluded won't be upset.

No people are being kept out. They are just not allowed to ride snowboards on someone else's property. When you protest on someone else's property, they generally have you arrested for trespassing.

Lostone wrote:

Quote: I will say this though - it's strange to me that a place will make a policy to keep a certain group of people out, and they are one of only a handful of places who do so, and then expect there won't be any animosity towards them, or that those excluded won't be upset. No people are being kept out. They are just not allowed to ride snowboards on someone else's property. When you protest on someone else's property, they generally have you arrested for trespassing.

Okay, you goaded me into one more comment...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

PS - I believe it is "our" property mi amigo, as in National Forest Land...but if I'm wrong I'm sure the lynch mob will hang me for it here...goodnight all.

sugarboarder wrote:

Lostone wrote: Quote: I will say this though - it's strange to me that a place will make a policy to keep a certain group of people out, and they are one of only a handful of places who do so, and then expect there won't be any animosity towards them, or that those excluded won't be upset. No people are being kept out. They are just not allowed to ride snowboards on someone else's property. When you protest on someone else's property, they generally have you arrested for trespassing. Okay, you goaded me into one more comment...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. PS - I believe it is "our" property mi amigo, as in National Forest Land...but if I'm wrong I'm sure the lynch mob will hang me for it here...goodnight all.

IIRC MRG sits on private land...except for maybe the very top....which is the LT and owned by the GMC.

Um, yeah. MRG is on private land. I won't lynch you, though. It's okay.

Private land starts from about the northern third of Slide Brook Basin. Sugarbush owns from there to beside the peak the old lift line was cut to (aside from the very peak of Mt. Ellen). There may be a separate owner of the land between there and MRG, but if there is, it's private. And then MRG is on private land as well.

If you want to poach/trespass/protest what ever you want to call it for the $$$ go right ahead. But this business about truth, justice and the American way all in the name of a corporate sponsored panty raid, oh brother please. When Rosa Parks is riding the single defiantly holding her snow board let me know.