Snowriter

Interesting ... Also interesting is that some of snowboarding's pioneers came from Jersey, including Tom Sims and Wayne Stovekin.

Utah Criminal Code: Commercial terrorism -- Penalties. (1) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he enters or remains unlawfully on the premises of or in a building of any business with the intent to interfere with the employees, customers, personnel, or operations of a business through any conduct that does not constitute an offense listed under Subsection (2). (Subsection 2 omitted as it does not apply, the snowboarding would call into the above section as it would be considered an attempt to interfere with business operations.) Criminal Trespass (1) As used in this section, "enter" means intrusion of the entire body. (2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, under circumstances not amounting to burglary as defined in Section (numbers omitted) a violation of Section (number omitted) regarding commercial terrorism: (a) he enters or remains unlawfully on property and: (i) intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section (number omitted) As previously noted, since the lift ticket would have been purchased under false pretenses, there would have been no true meetings of the minds as the rider's sole intention was deceive the owner to gain access to the mountain so he could use the slopes in a manner he knew was not permitted by the land owner. Thus, access to the slopes could be considered unlawful due to the rider's deception. Thus, in Utah, the rider could quite possibly be charged with either Commercial Terrorism or Criminal Trespass, depending on how a prosecutor read the statutes. Meanwhile, Burton would be the corporation encouraging the illegal activity in Utah. |Haven't bothered with the Vermont statutes yet :) All of that said ... I doubt that MRG, DV, or Alta would bother getting law enforcement involved. Not worth the hassle. Indeed, as noted in Marty Basch's December 13, 2007, Boston Globe Article, --- --- --- A Mad River Glen video shot last year shows a trio of skiers donning jackets and ties, paying for lift tickets, taking the lift, and then changing to snowboards hidden in the woods before riding down the mountain by the base area. "We're trying to take the high road with it," said Mad River Glen president Jamey Wimble. "We know it will happen at some point over the season. If they want to go to that effort, we will embrace them, congratulate them, and let them go on their way." "We figure a couple of people will try it," Wimble said. "If we get hordes coming in, then it will be a little bit of a problem." (snip) "The only thing about this is on Jake's side," said Wimble. "If anything, he hardened the fact more as to why we don't want snowboarders here." --- --- -- I can also say that, at MRG, over the years snowboarders have been known to sneak in at dawn or dusk and grab runs when the mountain is closed. Due to the small number of people that have ever bothered to do it, MRG has never really cared. (In fact, the exact quote from Friedman to me was ... "We don't care.") Nonetheless, if someone gets hurt as a result of this publicity stunt, the blood will be on Burton's hands and the money will come out of their coffers.

IIRC, there was a lawsuit about snowboarder access to the federal land a few years back and the riders lost.

Actually, back in the '70s, Tom Sims referred to his boards as ski boards in a couple publications and Bob Weber initially called his patented version of the snowboard a mono-ski.

As I already explained, your Mickey Mouse analogy is different (the reasons are several, one of which I already outlined) and prosecutors in Vermont or Utah might consider snowboarding at MRG, DV, or Alta a form of trespass, criminal mischief, etc. Furthermore, as I already stated, should a a terrible accident occur, as I earlier explained, Burton could quite possibly be held liable for it and deservedly so.

Not sure the analogy holds up as the riders' sole intent for purchasing the lift ticket was to use the facility in a manner that the owners do not permit. In essence, the purchasers of the lift ticket misrepresented the reason for their purchase of the tickets and thus, their access to the mountain was obtained under false pretenses. Thus, said access could be considered a form of trespass. Essentially, the rider entered into the contract in bad faith and with the sole intent to violate the rules of the mountain. Thus, the lift ticket contract could be considered void and the rider could be considered guilty of trespass. Furthermore, should an accident occur and the rider was not only at fault but clearly reckless (the type of behavior encouraged by the videos) Burton could be held liable for damages as Burton encouraged (one could even say incited based on the prize money offered and the videos displayed on its web site) the reckless rule breaking behavior that was the cause of the accident. Because said accident was clearly a foreseeable result of the behavior Burton encouraged, Burton could - and should - be held liable for any damages created by a reckless boarder participating in Burton's poaching campaign. Such a scenario, btw, in some ways, is reminiscent of Weirum vs. RKO General (though hopefully the consequences would not be as dire).

Perhaps, but I think Burton ultimately was encouraging people to break the law (basically trespass) which, I really don't think is a good idea ...

Actually, it's Sherman and he was not a chemical engineer. That myth has been spread about in a number of sources, but I can tell you for sure that it's false.

The SB History timeline is a very useful tool to begin your research. I've been helped quite a bit by it. It does, however, contain a number of errors in it (dates, etc.). So, always get actual documentation, especially if you're writing a paper/article on the sport, that either supports or refutes the TW timeline. Don't just rely on the timeline.

I saw that you posted this on another thread. Very nice ... a great piece of history!!!

As noted by Winterstick.org, Winterstick's appearance on the market predates Sims by a few years. In fact, I've yet to see any hard evidence that any snowboard manufacturer other than Winterstick had a product on the market in 1977. If anyone can provide documentation that proves otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it. Thanks!

Actually, according to a Burton interview from 1981ish, he stated that he moved to Vermont in January 1978. When I interviewed Jake back in 2002, he stated that during the '77-'78 season he was just getting the business together and that the first year of production was the '78-'79 season, with him launching product in December 1978. December 1978 seems pretty accurate based on some other research interviews I've read and other research I've done. Sooo ... I tend to think he started the company in early 1978. (How do you get 1977 from 1978? Well, it was still the 1977-78 season...) The first Burton Boards were sold to the public in December 1978. So far, that's the timeline I've been able to put together.

Prototype Wintersticks were being sold as early as February 1975 for $275. Winterstick, the company, was not formed until later, during the '75-'76 season to be exact (and rather loose at the same time). Wintersticks were sold at trade shows for the first time in 1977 at the NSGA and SIA shows.