Please forgive me for barging in like this. I'd like to make a few observations.
1) Those who say this is about obeying authority, I'd wonder your feelings on the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution. You might consider the problem of authority differently if you understood those two historic events, their origins, and the reasons for their occurrence.
2) Skinning uphill poses no more "danger" to descending skiers or snowboarders than does a snowboarder sitting on her behind in the middle of a run. Nor more danger than a skier who has paused to catch his breath. In fact I could argue that the situation of a skinner is safer than the stopped skier or boarder, because the uphill skinner is looking uphill whereas the boarder on her behind probably isn't -- most that I see sitting down in places I've skied around the West don't sit facing uphill. Most skiers tend to stop sideways, perpendicular to the travel. A skinner, on the other hand, faces the people heading down, which makes it much more likely a safe encounter for both parties.
3) The idea of direct action to affect governmental authority, or the derived use of such authority (a leaseholder tenant of governmental lands), is fundamental for any objectionable law, ordinance or regulation. Sure, in an ideal world, where elected officials actually listen in earnest to citizen complaints, and act upon them accordingly, direct action would seem excessive and selfish. But how about when faced with an unresponsive governmental entity (you know, like the US Forest Service), or a litigation-fearing leaseholder tenant who over-reacts to "danger"? I'm talking about a situation where both entities are more interested in circling their wagons than having an open discussion. In such a case, how are you going to get a change in policy or enforcement? We can't all afford to bribe public officials, directly (buying them meals, booze, drugs, women, whatever) or indirectly (investing in their business, buying from their business, etc). We can't all afford to become major stakeholders in the mountain resort.
4) There's a strange attitude of hate toward this 78-year-old guy. The comments by "davluri" are especially problematic IMO. Were I to use the same style and tone toward davluri that he used in reference to the 78-year-old skinner, I'd guess that davluri is an incredibly insecure person who bows to authority everywhere, and therefore he thinks anyone who doesn't instantly kowtow to authority is depressed or delusional. But I'm not that type of person, not the type who'd post that about davluri. Except I just did. Oops. Sorry davluri.