Smith, a certified ski instructor, claimed that two large area operators, substantial portions of whose trails were located on forest service property and who held permits for use of the land, refused to permit him to operate his own independent ski school at their ski areas. It was Smith’s contention that he had “a right to conduct an independent ski school on lands to which defendants hold a Forest Service permit and on trails built by defendants at their own expense.”
Smith, as plaintiff, also claimed that the areas had conspired to eliminate all independent skiing instructors, including him, and to thereby monopolize the ski school business in their areas, all in violation of federal antitrust statutes.
The basis of Smith’s claim was that the federal statute granting the Secretary of Agriculture authority “to permit the use and occupancy of suitable areas of land within the national forests . . . for the purpose of constructing or maintaining hotels, resorts, and other structures or facilities necessary or desirable for recreation . . .” provided also that this power “shall be exercised in such manner as not to preclude the general public from full enjoyment of the natural, scenic, recreational and other aspects of the national forests.”
Smith reasoned from this that he could therefore conduct his own ski school as a profit-making venture at any ski facilities operated on forest service land without obtaining a use permit. The Court, however, was unimpressed with this logic. It noted that regulations issued by the Forest Service “prohibited on national forests or other land under Forest Service control [the] conducting [of] any kind of business enterprise without a permit.” It was clear, the Court concluded, that while the statute relied upon by Smith did “reserve to the public the right to use the forests for camping, fishing, hunting and similar recreational activities without requirement of a permit,” conducting a ski school was a “business enterprise” which could not be conducted without the required permit.
Moreover, the Court also alluded to the forest service’s policy of not authorizing other individuals to operate concessions or ski schools on a ski area being operated by another party without the other party’s permission, and concluded that the regulations and the forest service policy were “reasonable, authorized, lawful and in the public interest.”
The Court explained: “It is clearly in the public interest to have well-developed, financially sound ski areas, and unless investors who are willing to abide by Forest Service regulations are given some protection against fly-by-nights who have no permit, such investors cannot be expected to risk their capital in the development of a new and unproven area.”
As to the antitrust claim, the Court noted that the competitive market in the ski industry was nationwide and could not be limited to a particular area, explaining that there was no evidence here of an attempt to monopolize this market.
Moreover, noted the judge, whatever limitations on Smith’s right to conduct a ski school resulted from “proper government action,” namely the federal statute and the rules and regulations of the forest service, and such action cannot be held to violate the antitrust laws.
In conclusion, then, the Court said: “Plaintiff has no right to teach skiing for hire as an independent contractor on lands to which defendants hold a temporary use permit for the operation of a ski area, and defendants may take all reasonable steps to bar him from such teaching.” The action consequently was dismissed.
