I'm going to start calling bull on unfounded assertions that Alta is hurt by excluding snowboards. I want proof that Alta's revenue is impaired. Not chatter about how many snowboarders would ride there if they could, or how much revenue snowboarders generate at other resorts. No, if you're going to make baldfaced statements like that, you should be ready to support them.
As for joining Alta and Snowbird under one management, go ahead and fantasize, but somehow I don't see Alta selling to John Cumming (or vice versa) anytime soon.
I'm not talking about Alta losing out on snowboarders. I'm talking about Alta and Snowbird losing out on both skiers and snowboarders because they're marketed as two separate ski areas with two separate trail maps where you have to pay more for the privilege of skiing between the two. Hence, my example of a hypothetical situation where Jackson splits into two resorts that are marketed separately and people are charged more money to ski between them just so one side could implement a new policy. That would make me less willing to visit even if I'm not directly affected by the new policy. I would simply be put off by the increased hassle/expense of skiing there.
I think a single area advertising over 4500 acres of terrain would be even more marketable than two separate resorts advertising half that amount of terrain each. They don't have to be owned by the same person/company to do that.