Utah If And When Will Deer Valley Allow Snowboarding?

[Mendieta]

I thought a big part of why they don't allow snowboarders is layout logistics.. lots of flattish traverses to reach the most popular powder terrain... Maybe a better descriptor would be ... "poles and pushing required".. that way they aren't discriminating against snowboarders directly..

What is the policy for adaptive skiers around those traverses anyway??

Is that both Alta and DV or are the reasons different for each of those??

Mmm ... I haven't been to Alta. Frankly, I haven't been to many ski areas and resorts. Less than 10. But DV has the best lift and trail design I've seen, by far.You basically get on a comfy, fast lift, that takes you to the top of the run, no cat walk, no traversing, it's just, mostly skiing if you are not going back on the lift.

Here is the trailmap. There are of course some exceptions. Some runs take a bit of a cat walk traverse. Orion up empire is one. The more advanced skier right of Eagle takes a bit of a traverse on a cat walk as well to get to the top of the bowls and Stein's way. But even those are rather minimal.

Back to the core of @Philpug 's question: I wonder what would be the consequences of making a change in policy for the use of the mountain, for the many homeowners that have spent big bucks to purchase real estate on the mountain. Would they have a legal basis to object? (assuming they care).

Funny enough, we were discussing this with @Lorenzzo on the lift. No these changes, but ownership on the mountain. I was talking about how much of a bet you make if your drop a large amount on a house in a resort. The value of the home is correlated to decisions made by the resort's management.

 

[fatbob]

Y

Incidentally, I hope we don't go off-rails here. This is a difficult topic, because we can be hurtful in our opinions. And there is no need. I do prefer to ski in a place with no snowboarding, for a simple reason: most (but not all) of the bad behavior I see in the mountain (and this is my personal experience) is done by snowboarders. To be more specific: I normally see a ratio of 7 to 3 or 8 to 2 skiers vs boarders, and most of the bad stuff I see is from the latter group, which is even more striking. I think there is something about the culture of each sport, but I don't fully understand it, and I want to focus on the what, not the why.

I don't get this - the bad behaviour has nothing to do with what people are riding and everything to do with how inexperienced, entitled or arrogant people are. Ive had some hilarious run ins with skiers when I've been on a board because they start from an all boarders are punks attitude e.g. telling me that I couldn't stop when entering a lift line when self evidently I had been able to or bitching me out for " sitiing in the middle of the run" when way off piste snd they wete the ones in way over their heads.

Somewhere like Squaw terrain dictates that most boarders know their sh:t somewhat, somewhere like Nstar not so much.

 

[crgildart]

Ya, there are plenty of people and teens on two planks with bad behavior as well. Race team brats leaving their skis on the ground all over the access gates between the lodge and lifts at lunch.. Park rats on freestyle skis stinking of dope and somewhat oblivious to what's going on around them in the lift line or intentionally splitting up at the bullwheel to manspread empty seats as they ride up, cussing and making dangerous moves out on the mountain putting others at risk, both race rats and park rats.. and drunk redneck noobs all do it with skis on.. Snowboarders do not have a monopoly on bad behavior..

Blind spot and need to groom trails more often due to more skidding and scraping might be more valid arguments to harm snowboarders do more than skiers.. Still not worthy of banning them IMO..

 

[Lauren]

I hope that someday they allow snowboarders...along with the hope that MRG and Alta would get on board a well. You could say I'm bias, I am a snowboarder. But I think banning snowboarders is outdated, judgmental and overall a bit pretentious. I don't really have much patience for those that would judge me simply from how many planks I have on my feet. Fatbob said it best (QFT):

the bad behaviour has nothing to do with what people are riding and everything to do with how inexperienced, entitled or arrogant people are.

We're all out there for the same reasons, to have fun sliding on snow. We spend hours upon hours in cold, snowy, icy, windy conditions for the love of the mountains and how they make us feel. It's easy to forget that. So I would encourage anyone that is annoyed that a snowboarder is "ruining" your run by boardsliding a trail, remember a time that you got in over your head and had to sideslip a section of trail (we've all done it). Take a deep breath, count to 10, and remember, you're there for the same reasons.

 

[Philpug]

I hope that someday they allow snowboarders...along with the hope that MRG and Alta would get on board a well. You could say I'm bias, I am a snowboarder. But I think banning snowboarders is outdated, judgmental and overall a bit pretentious. I don't really have much patience for those that would judge me simply from how many planks I have on my feet. Fatbob said it best (QFT):

fatbob said: ↑
the bad behaviour has nothing to do with what people are riding and everything to do with how inexperienced, entitled or arrogant people are.​

We're all out there for the same reasons, to have fun sliding on snow. We spend hours upon hours in cold, snowy, icy, windy conditions for the love of the mountains and how they make us feel. It's easy to forget that. So I would encourage anyone that is annoyed that a snowboarder is "ruining" your run by boardsliding a trail, remember a time that you got in over your head and had to sideslip a section of trail (we've all done it). Take a deep breath, count to 10, and remember, you're there for the same reasons.

Very valid points.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

It seems that part of the issue is terrain and placement of terrain parks. Years ago at Breck, they put terrain parks and pipes at various locations. Several pipes/parks could only be accessed via green/blue relatively flat runs. So, you had many boarders trying to get to the features from the lift. Because of the terrain, they would rip through there. Those runs were also used by many beginner/intermediate skiers. It was scary for many people. I do not want my season ended by someone straightlining their way to the terrain park and I saw it happen on several occasions.

I would love to see terrain parks concentrated in one area with Poma lifts or other access to avoid these types of issues.

Crowds, demographics, ability level of all riders are all factors that play into the interaction between people. It is also a safety issue if you have riders that ride above their ability level and ignore the right of way issues.

I have heard the "you were in my line" or "he was in my line" statement on several occasions. Bottom line is that attitude is dangerous.

I think a ski only mountain option is great. I also think a boarder only mountain and specific terrain park portions of areas with lift access for those parks would be great also.
Hopefully, that would lead to safer and more enjoyable experiences for everyone.

 

[crgildart]

It seems that part of the issue is terrain and placement of terrain parks. Years ago at Breck, they put terrain parks and pipes at various locations. Several pipes/parks could only be accessed via green/blue relatively flat runs. So, you had many boarders trying to get to the features from the lift. Because of the terrain, they would rip through there. Those runs were also used by many beginner/intermediate skiers. It was scary for many people. I do not want my season ended by someone straightlining their way to the terrain park and I saw it happen on several occasions.

I would love to see terrain parks concentrated in one area with Poma lifts or other access to avoid these types of issues.

Crowds, demographics, ability level of all riders are all factors that play into the interaction between people. It is also a safety issue if you have riders that ride above their ability level and ignore the right of way issues.

I have heard the "you were in my line" or "he was in my line" statement on several occasions. Bottom line is that attitude is dangerous.

I think a ski only mountain option is great. I also think a boarder only mountain and specific terrain park portions of areas with lift access for those parks would be great also.
Hopefully, that would lead to safer and more enjoyable experiences for everyone.

Who says allowing snowboarders would require having a terrain park at all? It would seem to me that NOT having a terrain park would achieve the objective of "weeding" out the stoner types better than banning snowboarders in general. I do really believe that's what the whole motivation is rooted in after all..

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Who says allowing snowboarders would require having a terrain park at all? It would seem to me that NOT having a terrain park would achieve the objective of "weeding" out the stoner types better than banning snowboarders in general. I do really believe that's what the whole motivation is rooted in after all..

I did not say anything about weeding out "stoner types". What I said is that resorts could do a better job of giving everyone what they want which would make it more fun and safer for all.

 

[John Webb]

KSL/Crown family comglomerate (ie Aspen/Squaw) has just bought Deer Valley, not that this is relevant to the snowboard discussion.

https://snowbrains.com/deer-valley-ut-just-bought-squaw-valleyaspen-ski-co/
MCP ,RMSP and another pass will be honored 2017/18 . Snowboard policy will not change.

 

[fatbob]

It seems that part of the issue is terrain and placement of terrain parks.

Not a particularly strong argument for segregation, more for resort planners to give traffic flow more than cursory attention. See any resort which funnels beginners/ early intermediates down the only return to base without giving them fair warning there will be dense and fast traffic.

 

[Philpug]

KSL/Crown family comglomerate (ie Aspen/Squaw) has just bought Deer Valley, not that this is relevant to the snowboard discussion.

https://snowbrains.com/deer-valley-ut-just-bought-squaw-valleyaspen-ski-co/
MCP ,RMSP and another pass will be honored 2017/18 . Snowboard policy will not change.

...at this time.

With new ownership, comes new rules. I am not saying that they will change the policy..but when you spend as much as they did, do they want to alienate a significant percentage of a sport when participation is either flat or on the decline?

 

[Lauren]

It seems that part of the issue is terrain and placement of terrain parks. Years ago at Breck, they put terrain parks and pipes at various locations. Several pipes/parks could only be accessed via green/blue relatively flat runs. So, you had many boarders trying to get to the features from the lift. Because of the terrain, they would rip through there. Those runs were also used by many beginner/intermediate skiers. It was scary for many people. I do not want my season ended by someone straightlining their way to the terrain park and I saw it happen on several occasions.

I would love to see terrain parks concentrated in one area with Poma lifts or other access to avoid these types of issues.

Crowds, demographics, ability level of all riders are all factors that play into the interaction between people. It is also a safety issue if you have riders that ride above their ability level and ignore the right of way issues.

I have heard the "you were in my line" or "he was in my line" statement on several occasions. Bottom line is that attitude is dangerous.

I think a ski only mountain option is great. I also think a boarder only mountain and specific terrain park portions of areas with lift access for those parks would be great also.
Hopefully, that would lead to safer and more enjoyable experiences for everyone.

While I do agree with your take on safety, catering certain areas to terrain parks, and having good ways to get to and from parks without much interference with the general public, I do not believe that it has much relevance in this discussion. There are skiers and snowboarders that do exactly as described, flatline it directly through beginner and intermediate terrain to get to their destination. And while it was once snowboarders that dominated terrain parks, it's not that way anymore. Freestyle skiing has grown 10 fold in the past 5-10 years (don't quote me on that statistic...it's just a ball park figure based on my observations).

Getting into terrain above your head is dangerous, I think we can all agree to that. Not only to yourself but can be dangerous to those around, but once again this is not unique to snowboarders.

Once again, I think you bring up a lot of good points about safety on the mountain. However, I fail to understand how they relate to a having a skier only mountain.

 

[Muleski]

i actually spent the day yesterday with a friend who owns a home at DV. A modest little 7000 SF place. Nice to visit. The last time we were there, we went to one of his neighbors for a USSA cocktail party, with a lot of the trustees. A few have homes there.

This is simple. The stakeholders in the place, the homeowners and the frequent and returning vacationers do not want snowboarders. Forget whether it is fair, logical, right, etc. Not the point. It's not happening.

One of the guys heavily involved in this deal was at this party and we skied together the next day. I can recall a conversation about this.

I mentioned that I have friends who are very skilled riders, on any terrain or surface. There is nothing more inpressive that to see one of them on a groomed surface laid out inches above the snow carving on a long board while wearing hard boots. One wears alpine plugs. Inspiring. I also know these guys cause zero problems on traverses, having seen it.

I am about 100% certain that KSL/HCC will be very happy to have a high end property like DV, with delighted customers and no riders.

I keep saying. These guys know what they are doing. BTW, my DV friend has two adult kids who ride, and when they are there, they ride at PC or the Canyons. Slight inconvenience, sure. Huge, no.

My guess.......

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Not a particularly strong argument for segregation, more for resort planners to give traffic flow more than cursory attention. See any resort which funnels beginners/ early intermediates down the only return to base without giving them fair warning there will be dense and fast traffic.

Sometimes, there is only one way to the bottom. At Breck, you have to go down green runs to get to the bottom. Many people go way too fast and scare the hell out of beginners. Warning beginners, who have no where else to ski, does not make the situation better.

I think people like having a skier only mountain because it removes the potential for any of the issues with boarders. I was offering solutions which might allow everyone to have a safe, fun, experience.

I prefer Alta over Breck any way because I do not have to worry about being run into by a boarder. At Snowmass, not so much of an issue because the boarders are generally better and have a huge choice of terrain. Plus, they can ride one of the lifts and easily get to the terrain park.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

While I do agree with your take on safety, catering certain areas to terrain parks, and having good ways to get to and from parks without much interference with the general public, I do not believe that it has much relevance in this discussion. There are skiers and snowboarders that do exactly as described, flatline it directly through beginner and intermediate terrain to get to their destination. And while it was once snowboarders that dominated terrain parks, it's not that way anymore. Freestyle skiing has grown 10 fold in the past 5-10 years (don't quote me on that statistic...it's just a ball park figure based on my observations).

Getting into terrain above your head is dangerous, I think we can all agree to that. Not only to yourself but can be dangerous to those around, but once again this is not unique to snowboarders.

Once again, I think you bring up a lot of good points about safety on the mountain. However, I fail to understand how they relate to a having a skier only mountain.

My point us that if resorts managed terrain better, a skier only mountain may not draw the attraction Alta and Deer Valley draw.

 

[TonyC]

I thought a big part of why they don't allow snowboarders is layout logistics.. lots of flattish traverses to reach the most popular powder terrain... Maybe a better descriptor would be ... "poles and pushing required".. that way they aren't discriminating against snowboarders directly..

What is the policy for adaptive skiers around those traverses anyway??

Is that both Alta and DV or are the reasons different for each of those??

Layout is a reason often cited by Altaphiles. The High T on a snowboard would be quite a challenge, and often dangerous. This argument does not exist at Deer Valley IMHO because, as Mendieta notes, virtually all the lifts at DV lead to direct fall line skiing. In terms of lifts/topography DV is an excellent mountain for boarders, particularly the hard boot/carver types.

What does the existing clientele think? We have already been down this road at Taos. Taos has more technical/traverse intensive terrain, much more like Alta than Deer Valley. And yet Taos changed policy in 2008. I was on a press trip there in 2007 and Adrianna Blake said there was no legacy from Ernie to ban snowboarders. It was a marketing balance between the long time customers who favored the ban, and the drive-up Texas families who were deterred because someone in the family boarded. Adrianna said they reviewed the policy frequently, and obviously the balance was rather close in 2007 because the policy changed the next year.

Maybe that balance is not so close at Deer Valley. But we don't really know, because around the ski area those in favor of the ban are the ones we hear. Since Deer Valley is perceived as a big success the way it is, there may be little incentive to change. Taos was suffering declining market share a decade ago, though most of that was due to a run of poor snow years.

My personal belief is that Deer Valley's ambience is far more due to the ticket limit than the snowboard ban. It will be hard to control that ticket limit if DV goes on the MCP or on an Aspen/KSL equivalent of the Epic Pass.

It would not surprise me at all to see Deer Valley's snowboard ban lifted. I think Alta and MRG will remain skier only indefinitely.

 

[fatbob]

Sometimes, there is only one way to the bottom. At Breck, you have to go down green runs to get to the bottom. Many people go way too fast and scare the hell out of beginners. Warning beginners, who have no where else to ski, does not make the situation better.

Breck is a prime example of where a resort (if it cared) could do more - there is plenty of space on those flat green runs returning to base, more than enough to fence out a SLOW SIDE and a TRAFFIC SIDE. Saying beginners have nowhere else to go isn't really the answer - it is protecting them by keeping them out of faster traffic and also respecting the traffic by providing them with a route.

I have sympathy with beginners as the relative speed differences between them and someone skiing at moderate pace can seem huge. And yada yada yada re code but people who are more advanced but not as good as they think will make mistakes if in a dense traffic mixed zone.

 

[Cuff]

My opinion aside...scuttlebutt around Park City is that Deer Valley will change it's policy and allow snowboarding 2019-2020 season.

 

[Goose]

If there is already in existence an efficient profitable situation at the resort and any related community tied to it now , then why would anyone mess with that?
That said, ceo's, coo's, cfo's etc... often do many things for any number of reasons even if they make no sense to any of us. Sometimes they work great and sometimes they fail miserably. Its all about money and personal gain. And sometimes the ugly truth is, decisions can often be made even if wrong in the long term as long as it suits pockets in the short term. So I don't put anything past any company whether it makes sense to us or not. If it was me....why mess with something that works very well (if that's what DV does). But as said, its impossible to know. For all we know it could even just be a personal decision where as if those making it happen to have a negative or positive opinion about boarding or just like the idea.

I think if they allow boards they will also drop the limit on lift tix. They know the amount of tix sold to boarders on their other resorts and may feel why not allow it there and also sell more tix on a daily basis over all. It all comes down to money. That's the ugly end result. They might risk what may be working well now in order to hopefully gain even more. It could backfire but as said you just never know.

 

[Magi]

Alta's restriction against snowboarders always struck me as a safety issue on the traverses (which were narrow, occasionally in no fall zones, and flat to uphill in many spots when I want there).