Northstar Snowboard Incident.

[Fair Wages]

While there tends to be multiple sides to every story, this Shred Mom account http://shredmom.com/snowboarding/vi...ected-man-attacked-punished-causing-behavior/ got me thinking about how much power the resorts have on public land.

Should ski resorts be able to unilaterally ban guests/revoke passes at resorts on public land (often at below market lease rates) or should they be required to provide the USFS with an explanation as to why someone has been banned with the banned individual having some sort of appeals process with the USFS?

 

[TahoeLiftie]

The resort in question is on private land.

 

[James]

That's a crazy story. I don't see why she got banned. The snowboarder works for Vail? Is related somehow? I think she should press charges just to find out his name.

 

[Fair Wages]

The resort in question is on private land.

I don't know specifically about Northstar, but she alleges they threatened to ban her from all Epic resorts, many of which are on public land.

 

[scott43]

I don't really see the issue. If an assault has taken place, you contact the police and they investigate. If there is sufficient evidence they press charges. It's not that complicated. If no charges are laid I wonder about the veracity of the story in general. If you pop anyone in a line anywhere without cause, you generally go to jail for that. If you've been assaulted and the police refuse to charge the person I don't think the ski pass is your first concern..

 

[pais alto]

The USFS generally gives lessees a pretty wide latitude as to how they run their business, and they don't really seem to have the desire, nor the funding, nor the staffing to get involved in disputes such as this one, unless someone's civil rights are being clearly violated. Remember that snowboarders' complaints about Taos being closed to them got nowhere with the USFS.

Basically, just because the resort is on public lands doesn't mean everyone has open access to do what they want on it. I'm not aware of any established civil right to the contrary, only in some peoples' minds.

That lady's story is a bit of a can of worms. It's hard to take at face value. I'm not making judgement, just an observation.

 

[crgildart]

I'm thinking that places of business that are open to the general public have to serve all equally unless they can provide a solid and documented reason to refuse service. Anything short of some kind of legal action should fail to meet those reasons. They should be able to take your pass for skiing out of control in front of witnesses that sign reports (ski patrols), ducking ropes, etc.. But, short of something that constitutes trespassing or reckless endangerment documented by resort staff willing to sign affidavits testifying to it shouldn't prevent anyone from being able to enter a new or continue an existing business relationship. Being a pain in the ass isn't sufficient grounds to refuse service unless it is proven to be disruptive and causing harm.

 

[pais alto]

...Being a pain in the ass isn't sufficient grounds to refuse service unless it is proven to be disruptive and causing harm.

Do you have a legal citation for that?

 

[crgildart]

Do you have a legal citation for that?

Several! Does this count as a new one?

 

[Fair Wages]

The USFS generally gives lessees a pretty wide latitude as to how they run their business, and they don't really seem to have the desire, nor the funding, nor the staffing to get involved in disputes such as this one, unless someone's civil rights are being clearly violated. Remember that snowboarders' complaints about Taos being closed to them got nowhere with the USFS.

Basically, just because the resort is on public lands doesn't mean everyone has open access to do what they want on it. I'm not aware of any established civil right to the contrary, only in some peoples' minds.

That lady's story is a bit of a can of worms. It's hard to take at face value. I'm not making judgement, just an observation.

I agree that the USFS gives special use permit holders wide latitude in how they run their business, the USFS spokesman in this report says as much, BUT should we accept that this is in the public's best interests? With things like rafting companies, at least a US taxpayer can go to another rafting company on the same stretch of river if one company bans them, but this is not the case with ski resorts where typically only 1 "non-exclusive" SUP is issued- get barred from all Epic Pass resorts because of a questionable incident at Northstar and there goes your chance of ever skiing Vail's back bowls or viewing a Men's World Cup event on US soil (unless the Birds of Prey event gets moved to Aspen which I heard is a possibility). This seems wrong.

I can't verify the accuracy of Shred Mom's story, nor am I advocating that people should be able to do whatever they want on all public land, but I am more inclined to side with crgildart views when it comes to keeping businesses on public land open to the public.

 

[Monique]

Doesn't ski patrol pull passes all the time at all sorts of resorts on USFS land, for much less than assault? If they couldn't, they wouldn't have much authority.

 

[Fair Wages]

I don't really see the issue. If an assault has taken place, you contact the police and they investigate. If there is sufficient evidence they press charges. It's not that complicated. If no charges are laid I wonder about the veracity of the story in general. If you pop anyone in a line anywhere without cause, you generally go to jail for that. If you've been assaulted and the police refuse to charge the person I don't think the ski pass is your first concern..

Sure, her ski pass might not be her first concern, but I bet nobody on this site would like to have their ski pass revoked. Apparently, she has filed an assault charge with the police http://shredmom.com/uncategorized/update-addressing-northstar-assault/

Doesn't ski patrol pull passes all the time at all sorts of resorts on USFS land, for much less than assault? If they couldn't, they wouldn't have much authority.

I agree, but typically these are for short periods of time and/or don't apply to all resorts. I think there is a difference between pulling someones pass for a day, week or even a month than a lifetime ban from all resorts.

 

[crgildart]

Doesn't ski patrol pull passes all the time at all sorts of resorts on USFS land, for much less than assault? If they couldn't, they wouldn't have much authority.

I think they can do that as resort staff and security if they witness something dangerous, possibly criminal or have other witnesses accounts. I believe they need to be prepared to swear in a deposition or affidavit when actually making the call to take a ticket or suspend or revoke a season pass. Banning someone for life probably would amount to some form of discrimination in absence of some kind of evidence (witnesses, especially resort staff witnesses) that the banned person did something harmful or potentially harmful to the business in question. If you get caught shoplifting they can ban you from all Walmart stores even if they choose not to press charges at that moment. They do need to have evidence justifying the action in case you decide to try to sue them.

 

[crgildart]

Can we expect cease and desist orders coming from VMR if this thread gets too many views?

 

[Johnny V.]

 

[pais alto]

As a full-time patroller, over 10 years I've seen people permanently barred from skiing at the area where I work that's on public land. Not for dangerous or or criminal or hazardous behavior or actions, but for refusing to behave in an acceptable manner (mildly stated), contrary to what crgildart thinks 'they' can do in post #13. Make of that what you will.

I notice that post #9 in this thread doesn't seem to answer my question from post #8. Am I missing something?

 

[scott43]

Sure, her ski pass might not be her first concern, but I bet nobody on this site would like to have their ski pass revoked. Apparently, she has filed an assault charge with the police http://shredmom.com/uncategorized/update-addressing-northstar-assault/

Some people should have their pass revoked. If the police report is accurate and the other party is charged, I expect THAT person may have their pass revoked and maybe that's a good thing.

 

[crgildart]

As a full-time patroller, over 10 years I've seen people permanently barred from skiing at the area where I work that's on public land. Not for dangerous or or criminal or hazardous behavior or actions, but for refusing to behave in an acceptable manner (mildly stated), contrary to what crgildart thinks 'they' can do in post #13. Make of that what you will.

I notice that post #9 in this thread doesn't seem to answer my question from post #8. Am I missing something?

I'd put profanity and recklessness in the list of bannable offenses. People disrespectful to the staff is proven to be disruptful and harmful to a business. You can totally ban someone for that and probably find a criminal stature to file charges of you really wanted to. Anything you can get banned from a movie theater for doing, you could also be banned from a ski resort for. There are laws addressing all of these things. Just because you don't press charges doesn't mean you can't ban them from coming back, you could if you really wanted to. You just need to be prepared to defend your business should they try to sue or file charges against you for banning them... see thread above.. is N* prepared to defend themselves for banning this lady? The facts will fall in to place and justice will preVAIL.

 

[crgildart]

Hey high country, was the person that left the loaded gun in the middle of the green trail banned for life?

 

[pais alto]

Hey high country, was the person that left the loaded gun in the middle of the green trail banned for life?

I'm not sure. It was handed over to management. He didn't ski any more, but that was for other reasons. Apparently no laws were broken, because the sheriff left without taking action that I saw.

Rumor is that the ski area may ban guns on-premises during the ski season. Who knew that they had to?