[unreal6]

> Disney & sky resorts are private and are free to charge who they want how they want.

Many ski areas, while private bushiness often operate on public lands through long-term leases [1]. Some amount of public access (eg free uphill access to the lands) are often requirements as a part of the lease; I don't see why certain business terms shouldn't be able to be regulated in the interest of the general public.

[1] https://www.snow.com/info/colorado-forest-service-informatio...

[resolutebat]

At every ski resort I've been to, you pay for the lift pass granting access to the ski lifts. The only thing stopping you from slogging uphill on foot and skiing down for free is gravity.

[throwawayai2]

This is not the case, many resorts on public lands in the US do not allow uphill travel.

[resolutebat]

Not on the ski slopes themselves of course, but is there anything stopping a determined person from slogging their way up through the woods?

[bbradley406]

In my state resorts have the legal right to allow / deny uphill travel, regardless of whether it's public land or not. This is for several reasons that are mostly related to safety:

- There's a large amount of people that skin up and hike here, enough to present crowding issues if it's allowed

- Grooming being done in the early morning when people want to start hiking, and it's hard to see hikers regardless of if they use lights or not

- Areas that are roped off from above can be closed for unstable snow with high avalanche risk, or may be subject to bombing operations (hand placed explosives and artillery to induce avalanches before they are caused by skiers)

Check your areas rules, many allow it under certain conditions like time of day, routes, lights, etc. It's a good idea to make friends with someone on the patrol team so you know which areas are safe (and contain good snow ;) )

[snakeyjake]

>I don't see why certain business terms shouldn't be able to be regulated in the interest of the general public.

Implying that there is a legitimate public interest in equal-cost access to rides at disneyland does not seem like a defensible position.

That's a bit like saying it is against the interest of the public to charge more prime orchestra seats than second tier balcony seats at the opera.

My position is that if Disney wants to charge ten trillion dollars to skip the line to ride a rollecoaster and one cent for a rollercoaster ride with a 40-year waiting period, that's none of my concern.

[neaden]

The comment you are replying to is about skiing on public land, Disney has nothing to do with it.