The question of why resorts should be "forced" to allow "rogues" is really about recognizing the inherent power dynamics at play and ensuring that everyone's rights and interests are respected and protected.
In the current system, skiers and instructors alike are essentially forced to accept the terms dictated by the resort, with little room for negotiation or individual choice. If you want to learn to ski, you'll do it on the resort's terms, with the resort's instructors and at the resort's prices (or not at all). And if you want to work as a ski instructor, you have to do it as an employee of the resort, subject to its policies and priorities: commonly including labor violations and an almost total lack of emphasis on skier safety.
The current one-sided arrangement is not only unfair to skiers and instructors, but also runs counter to the fundamental principles of the social contract. In a democratic society, we accept certain limitations on our individual freedoms in exchange for the benefits of living in a community. But those limitations are supposed to be balanced and negotiated, not imposed unilaterally by those with the most power.
When it comes to ski resorts operating on public land, this balance is even more critical. Resorts like Vail obtain special permits for federal land use with the explicit condition that those permits are non-exclusive. The whole point of this policy is to ensure that the benefits of public land are shared fairly and that no single entity has the power to monopolize access or dictate terms.
In practice, resorts like Vail violate both the spirit and the letter of their permits by leveraging them into a stranglehold on ski instruction and virtually every other imaginable service. IOW, if Vail hasn't thought of it, and doesn't have the exclusive right to profit from it, then you can't either. That’s totally contrary to what the non-exclusive permits say. Opening up ski areas on federal land to allow students and teachers to forge their own relationships isn't “forcing” Vail to do anything, but rather enforcing the permit terms that Vail itself agreed on at the outset.
This is not just a matter for contract lawyers or policy wonks. It has real consequences for the health and diversity of the ski industry, and for the individual experiences of skiers themselves. When resorts have the power to dictate terms and limit choices, it stifles innovation, creativity, and personal expression. It makes it harder for new voices and perspectives to emerge, and it reinforces existing power structures and inequalities.
So when we talk about "forcing" resorts to allow independent instructors, what we're really talking about is restoring balance to a system that has become dangerously one-sided. It's about recognizing that skiers and ski teachers alike have a right to choose how they learn and work; that resorts have a responsibility to operate in good faith and in the public interest; about finding a way forward that works for everyone, and that honors the fundamental principles of choice, diversity, and fairness that are supposed to guide our society; it’s about ensuring that the ski industry remains a vibrant, dynamic, and equitable business.
Finally, it's about recognizing that, when it comes to something as fundamental as the right to learn and work on public land, we all have a stake in getting the balance right.
