As far as it being Vail's sandbox -- no it's not. It's our sandbox-- the US taxpayer. Vail corp paid the government for a commerical permit to erect the lifts and build establishments to support a commerical enterprise.
I was not implying that Vail does not have a right to enforce the contract a skier aggreed to by purchasing a lift ticket. The contract states that one cannot enter the area as a pay-for-hire instructor. Also, someone who aggrees to the contract has the legal and ethical obligation to follow it.
I simply wonder how fiscally responsibile it is for the FS, or any government agency, to give priority to invetigating such petty offenses--and they are petty. We have serious issues to deal with. Someone making some chump change at Vail as a clandestine instructor is not one of these serious issues. It's not exactly going to disrupt the economy or global trade. Let Vail deal with it, not the US taxpayer.
As far as the reidiculous explanation by Vail that this was all motivated by safety concerns, it's a matter of, "Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining." If Vail was really concerned about visitor safety, they certainly wouldn't have visitiors hanging upside-down from chairlifts by their gnads because of the incompetance of their lift oeprators.
I think it's obvious that I don't like Vail. Actually, I love the terrain but loathe the atmosphere. It's really not just about the expense. Skiing is expensive nowadays wherever you go. It is simply irritating. The whole atmosphere always reeks of being phoney and fake. The best I can liken it to is going to a five-star restraunt and being served a stellar five-course meal with plastic utensils and paper plates. On your way out, they hit you with a surcharge for the plastic utensils.