Poach, poach, poach, and poach again!

[paragonUE]

sort of a shame, i liked the old video. Despite the stupidity of those girls poaching at taos. it was a good warm up video, got me stoked to go out and hit the groomers.

PS. im suprised the whole new mexico poachers getting full on tackled by ski patrol thing isnt getting more attention. that seemed a little over the top on their part.

[Buell]

Of course you can't generalize but I can't stand snowboarders. I'm a little surprise only 4 resorts ban'em but then the typical little grinder spends a decent amount of money working on his "street cred" and trying to look "core" so I guess you just have to. So annoying!

It's not the snowboard so much as the demographic. Young, un-neutered males, they're just so annoying!

It's not the demographic, it's the whole "image" thing. That "snowboarder" image is so annoying!

As perfectly demonstrated by Burton's poaching campaign.

All the different snowsports and demographics have some issues with each other on the hill.

I have just as many issues with the straightlining skier as the jibber snowboarder who jumps onto the trail without looking from an off trail kicker.

Beyond that, it is not my issue if they are just trying to impress their friends. It is human nature.

Putting the video of the girls at Deer Valley was a PR mistake. Removing it was a great idea. That does not mean the whole concept is wrong.

There will always be people who think that direct action is a bad idea and sets back the cause, just as there will always be people who think that working the politics of the issue is a waste of time. It takes all kinds on all fronts to move a cause along. Even if the various fronts may not agree on tactics.

Personally, I think it is the resort's perogative to open to boarders or not. When, and if, a loss of revenue hits them hard enough, they will open to us. Nothing else can affect the decision significantly either positively or negatively.

I do find it odd that it takes the behemoth company of snowboarding to issue, and reward, a direct action challenge. Nothing grass roots about this. It is a great PR move for Burton, provided they can avoid any litigation issues from the resorts. $20,000 plus any marketing expenses promoting the challenge is awfully cheap for the coverage they are getting.

[Fastskiguy]

I have just as many issues with the straightlining skier...

Yeah, I can't stand them either!

I'd bet everybody on this board would agree-even me!

-no endangering others

-ride whatever you want

[b0ardski]

burton has made a few bucks in the last 20 yrs, I'm sure he could scrounge up a few wealthy backers. I can't figure out why he hasn't opened a board only area.

Any business has the right to create thier own operational policies; you dont see frisbees on a golf course.

I mean really, what percentage 4 ski areas in all of america, it's truly asinign:barf:

[paragonUE]

burton has made a few bucks in the last 20 yrs, I'm sure he could scrounge up a few wealthy backers. I can't figure out why he hasn't opened a board only area.

because my friend, we arent like them.

[bobdea]

I'd think Taos would go cheap as would MRG if the co-op was willing to let go of it.

MRG would cost a minimum of 10 mil to modernize after purchase so that would be out.

taos, all they'd need is a pipe dragon and some new patrollers!

[wavechaser]

I've always dreamed of Sugarbush buying MRG and connecting all three mountains to form one of the biggest and best areas in the east...key word "dream".

[b0ardski]

It really blows my mind how all snowboarders think that they are so different from skiers; it's all glisse, it's the same activety, the same fargin sport:argue:

[paragonUE]

I'd think Taos would go cheap as would MRG if the co-op was willing to let go of it.

MRG would cost a minimum of 10 mil to modernize after purchase so that would be out.

taos, all they'd need is a pipe dragon and some new patrollers!

naaa, keep the old patrollers, and watch the bitter look on their face as they watch the resort owner strap on a coiler custom

[boarderboy]

It really blows my mind how all snowboarders think that they are so different from skiers; it's all glisse, it's the same activety, the same fargin sport:argue:

Amen!

[wavechaser]

It really blows my mind how all snowboarders think that they are so different from skiers; it's all glisse, it's the same activety, the same fargin sport:argue:

It really blows my mind how all skiers think that they are so different from snowboarders; it's all glisse, it's the same activety, the same fargin sport:argue:

[b0ardski]

I couldn't agree more wave chaser:biggthump

[paragonUE]

I couldn't agree more wave chaser:biggthump

seconded:lurk:

[D-Sub]

A good friend of mine tried about seven years ago to start a private snowboard school/camp based in Avon ,Colorado,from where the intent was to take campers to Vail and Beaver Creek as well as a few other resorts. Most of Vail and some of Beaver Creek acreage is public lands. The Vail Resorts parent company blackballed him, sued him and threatened him (with the cooperation of Eagle County Sherrifs) with arrest if he were ever to try and enter the mountain again.He was trying his best to be diplomatic by remaining a part of the skischool and paying full boat for lift tickets as well as offering a cut to the company but their rule is law since they lease the land from OUR government and have nearly all rights granted outright owners.To add insult ,the leases these monopolies have are generally dirt cheap.

Ya lost me there. Boarding is legal at both mountains and has been for a long time.

[D-Sub]

It's not the snowboard so much as the demographic.

It's not the demographic, it's the whole "image" thing.

Well make up your mind! Is he gonna s--t or is he gonna kill us?

First he gon' s--t, then he gon' kill us!

[D-Sub]

PS. im suprised the whole new mexico poachers getting full on tackled by ski patrol thing isnt getting more attention. that seemed a little over the top on their part.

Completely against the law, and DEFINITELY a source for a lawsuit. Who the fck do those ski patrol think they are, cops? They have NO right to manhandle anyone. Couldn't believe the way they acted. Not surprised post 9/11 where everything is seen as a dangerous attack.

[bobdea]

in some states that's totally fine if you can make the argument that the whoever does the tackling is security

[wavechaser]

I'm sure there would have been more of a response by the riders, to the tackling, if there wasn't a video camera there and it wasn't set up by Burton...I know I would have. Interesting angle from MRG in that burlington Free Press article I posted above...as long as you don't ride the lift they don't care. (????) That's not exactly been my experience over there, but it wasn't management that got out of hand, it was some patchouli ridden hippies...good thing they didn't tackle us or I'd still stink today!

PS: Ex-wannabe reformed 70's hippie here. :)

[Steve Prokopiw]

Ya lost me there. Boarding is legal at both mountains and has been for a long time.

I was relating this story to the fact that even though these mountains are public land ,the management can dictate what goes on (ie,choose who to let use it or do business on it)due to the rights granted them by their leases.

[wavechaser]

in some states that's totally fine if you can make the argument that the whoever does the tackling is security

Sweet - I'm wearing my nylon SECURITY jacket when I poach! ;)

[Steve Dold]

Can a resort lease a defined area with the Forest Service? Usually when anyone builds something on USFS land they have a use permit that doesn't have a defined area ("space occupied") and you can't keep people from hanging around your stuff since it's still public land.

I assumed ski resorts had the same deal because last summer I was riding my mountain bike at the Kirkwood ski area (USFS land) for work (radio site surveys). It was legit, but it was sure weird getting paid to go mountain biking :-) Anyway, they sell lift tickets where you can ride the chair to the top with your bike. I asked them what would happen if people just came up and rode without buying lift tickets, and they said that since it was USFS land, they couldn't keep anyone from doing that, they only controlled who got to ride the lift.

I don't know if this means you can ride anything you want (on snow) as long as you hike to the top yourself. Anyone know about this or have connections at a resort and can ask?

[Derf]

I'm trying to follow the thread, but it's hard with all the replies. I'm wondering why no one has tried to poach with a split board? Take the chairlift with the board in ski mode. Get off the lift, go a couple of meters away, change to snowboard, go down the hill, before getting to the bottom, change to ski mode, go to the chairlift, go up again. Do it nough to get some footage, I'm sure it can get tiring after a while to do this.

[bobdea]

Can a resort lease a defined area with the Forest Service? Usually when anyone builds something on USFS land they have a use permit that doesn't have a defined area ("space occupied") and you can't keep people from hanging around your stuff since it's still public land.

I assumed ski resorts had the same deal because last summer I was riding my mountain bike at the Kirkwood ski area (USFS land) for work (radio site surveys). It was legit, but it was sure weird getting paid to go mountain biking :-) Anyway, they sell lift tickets where you can ride the chair to the top with your bike. I asked them what would happen if people just came up and rode without buying lift tickets, and they said that since it was USFS land, they couldn't keep anyone from doing that, they only controlled who got to ride the lift.

I don't know if this means you can ride anything you want (on snow) as long as you hike to the top yourself. Anyone know about this or have connections at a resort and can ask?

do they groom the snow?

they then could claim it's theirs probably. I've worked for resorts on federal land and in the state of CO they can remove you if they want to, make no mistake.

[paragonUE]

Can a resort lease a defined area with the Forest Service? Usually when anyone builds something on USFS land they have a use permit that doesn't have a defined area ("space occupied") and you can't keep people from hanging around your stuff since it's still public land.

I assumed ski resorts had the same deal because last summer I was riding my mountain bike at the Kirkwood ski area (USFS land) for work (radio site surveys). It was legit, but it was sure weird getting paid to go mountain biking :-) Anyway, they sell lift tickets where you can ride the chair to the top with your bike. I asked them what would happen if people just came up and rode without buying lift tickets, and they said that since it was USFS land, they couldn't keep anyone from doing that, they only controlled who got to ride the lift.

I don't know if this means you can ride anything you want (on snow) as long as you hike to the top yourself. Anyone know about this or have connections at a resort and can ask?

100 percent true, you can ride just about any mountain you want if its on state park land, provided you hike to the top if skiers have cordoned off the precious lift.

perhaps the new mexico ski patrol should get new jackets "securitrol" what a bunch of douchebags

[bobdea]

I'm sure there would have been more of a response by the riders, to the tackling, if there wasn't a video camera there and it wasn't set up by Burton...I know I would have. Interesting angle from MRG in that burlington Free Press article I posted above...as long as you don't ride the lift they don't care. (????) That's not exactly been my experience over there, but it wasn't management that got out of hand, it was some patchouli ridden hippies...good thing they didn't tackle us or I'd still stink today!

PS: Ex-wannabe reformed 70's hippie here. :)

so then they should have NO problem with with a split at all, I doubt that's really the case but there is only one way to find out.