Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
I am saying that it is VERY WRONG for people that ski 5~10 days a year to think that they deserve a say in how the sport of skiing should be.
Wow. That does sound pretty arrogant, though I guess it depends on what "deserve" means.
As jgiddyup points out, in a commercial sense, people who ski 5-10 days a year get a say for obvious reasons. I don't know the figures, but I suspect that people who ski less than 11 days a year account for a pretty high proportion of the skier days, and a considerably higher proportion of the total dollars into the ski areas.
I suspect mtbakerskier's objection, however, is not related to (or is even consciously hostile to) the commercial realities. I guess it's a sort of moral complaint. Mind you, the logical and moral framework behind it doesn't seem (to me) to be clear or supportable, but I guess that's what it is.
If you want to get all rigorously ethical about it, I suppose the clearest positions would be:
- No ski areas at all: It's a pointless activity, can only be afforded by an incredibly tiny percentage of the world's population, wastes a wildly disproportionate share of the world's resources, messes up the environment and is only possible (in most cases) because of government subsidies in the form of roads and permits to use public property.
- Something like the current reality: Decisions are made in order to please (on balance) the people who pay for the ski areas in the form of lift tickets and other income.
If we're going to go off somewhere else, I'm not sure why 10 days is the magic number. Even if we assume that more days = more moral legitimacy, why not draw the line at 40? Or 60? Ultimately, maybe we should just say nobody except full-time instructors and ski patrollers deserves a voice in how ski areas are run.