New Montana ski resort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montanaskier

I love skiing like the next guy, but can't we leave some shit alone? Would be much better IMO without a golf course, a resort, and all the fucking sprawl that comes with all that shit. All in the name of the almighty $$$$$. Leave our shit alone IMO!

---

Says the guy that loves Big Sky and all its sprawl

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/G....asp?S=5925106
Big Sky boom filling state coffers

Jan 11, 2007 08:56 AM MST




Governor Brian Schweitzer's Economic Development Director says that the community of Big Sky is having a large impact on Montana's economy as a whole.

Evan Barrett says that the resort community brings in millions of dollars to the state each year.

"It has a significant impact on the economic numbers of the whole state. In fact, we estimate that about $11 million in income taxes are paid to the state by folks who have jobs or are supported by the development in the Big Sky area."

Study findings released on Wednesday show that a booming construction business, and tourism dollars, in the area will continue to fuel economic growth throughout the state for years to come.

Right now, Big Sky offers over 11,000 jobs, and more than 50 new businesses have opened up in the last five years. Marne Haynes with the Big Sky Chamber of Commerce says that the community has evolved over the years.

"One of the greatest statements to come out of this whole process was the very first line that says what was once a place to ski has become a place to live, and I think that coins the whole statement."

The study suggests that total construction expenses in Big Sky within the next few years will rise to over $4 billion.

We Montanans are experts at shitting in our own nests for a quick buck. Look at Butte. Big Sky is really lovely to. I guess there aren't a whole lot of options when your economy is looking for a new toe hold (logging and mining are done). But, Montana won't be worth a shit once it's all sold out to tourons either. Catch 22 I guess. Oh, and that Lolo peak ski area would be a real piece of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hick

We Montanans are experts at shitting in our own nests for a quick buck. Look at Butte. Big Sky is really lovely to. I guess there aren't a whole lot of options when your economy is looking for a new toe hold (logging and mining are done). But, Montana won't be worth a shit once it's all sold out to tourons either. Catch 22 I guess. Oh, and that Lolo peak ski area would be a real piece of shit.

---

I didn't know Butte had a ski resort? Oh wait....that was a just a great example of a poor analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakofSnow

I didn't know Butte had a ski resort? Oh wait....that was a just a great example of a poor analogy.

---

My main beef with the Bitterroot Resort is that the skiing will be extremely mediocre. Also, I highly doubt that they will be able to secure the necessary permits to put in the lifts on National Forest land, and for that I am glad.

That said, I think Missoula could definitely use another ski area or a major expansion of the existing areas. Snowbowl is starting to be overused, and their expansion options are limited due to the Rattlesnake Wilderness.

I would fully support major Lost Trail expansion to the west, but I doubt that will EVER happen. Plus it's two hours from MSO.

The main problem with new ski areas is that they aren't really about the skiing. You know why Macclay wants to build a ski area on Lolo Peak? Because he squandered the family fortune and this is his last ditch real estate effort. :tdo13: :tdo13: :tdo13:

I can't link pictures from their website, but for everyone who has a woody about lift accessed skiing in the alpine in the bitterroots, look at this:

http://www.skibitterrootresort.com/gallery/#

What a fucking sham. That shot off Carlton Ridge is like 1000 vert at the most, and check out the traverse back to the base area. This is sooooooo not about creating a ski area for serious skiers.

Have fun on the cat though, Freak. I would probably do it if I could. Then I would take a dump in the driver's seat at the end of the day. ;)


edit: Here is a google earth overlay. Talk about a dumb compromise. What a clusterfuck of dumb lifts. http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat....16/Main/326168

Freak- I love skiing Big Sky but I HATE all the development and all the tourons. I would just assume have to still hike to the summit(though the Tram kicks ass). It is a double edge sword for sure. I like the occassional lift to the summit but hate it when the sprawl happens. Make no mistake I hate the sprawl as much as anyone else.

Lolo Peak gets good snow but everything below, especially where the property comes down into the valley, gets lots of rain. I've been in Missoula for eight years now and there NEVER is snow at the bottom which means he's gonna have to make a lot of the snow (yuck).

me likey the hills in the 'root

http://www.lolopk.org/

here's the official "other side".

And I'm officially torn.

That lift layout is absolutely retarted. They need a gondola or a tram going up to Carleton ridge with a midstation somewhere. Then they could put their mid-mountain restraunt on the ridge with nice views that could be open at night, for events, etc, and also only have one lift up to get to the lolo peak chair. Looks like a nightmare to get to the only decent terrain on that flat mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

so the golf heads will be literally slogging through shit

---

You are a retard, a good portion of the newer golf courses irrigate with reclaimed wastewater (treated) that is held in the water hazards on the course.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/i...g/rating_5.gif...? hmmm

Quote:

---

FOREST SERVICE STUDY REVEALS LACK OF DEMAND FOR PROPOSED BITTERROOT RESORT

MISSOULA, MT – A Forest Service study based on a review of national, regional and local trends in the ski industry, population levels, and climate data reveals a distinct lack of demand for additional skiing on the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests. Titled “Downhill Skiing Needs Assessment for the Bitterroot and Lolo Forest Plan Revisions”, the study concludes that current and projected trends “argue against the need to increase ski area capacity to accommodate growth in potential destination visitors to ski areas on the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests.”

The study examines four key components in determining the demand for, and viability of, downhill skiing and snowboarding on the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests: national ski industry trends, regional ski industry trends, local ski area capacity and projected demand, and climate data. The results in all four categories reveal a lack of national and regional demand for “North America’s largest ski resort” and casts serious doubts as to the proposed development’s viability.

“This is a very important, objective study,” said Daphne Herling of Friends of Lolo Peak. “It provides yet another indication - on top of widespread concern for the local economy, wildlife, water, scientific research and public access - that the proposed development is not only completely incompatible with the management prescriptions on and around Lolo Peak, but also unviable from a demand standpoint.”

The study was conducted by Ed Ryberg, who recently retired as head of the Forest Service's winter sports programs for the Rocky Mountain region. An avid skier, Ryberg worked closely with the ski industry throughout his career and provided expertise and guidance on winter sports management to state, federal and foreign government agencies. In a recent interview (10/25/05) with Ski Magazine, he was candid about his role in promoting skiing within the agency: "We are interested in providing first-class recreational opportunities in national forests. That’s our objective."

---

http://www.lolopk.org/images/photos.jpg
http://www.lolopk.org/images/photos_2.jpg
http://www.lolopk.org/images/photos_3.jpg
...............................wonder what this ^ person is doing?.................

The best way to stop is to build it and then only allow so much development to come along with it. Then change the zoning laws so that it would be utterly impossible to develop. That keeps the prices up for value and keeps the area with a certain character.

Problem is I do not like to step on another's front porch and tell them how to live as I do not want them spewing their values on myself. So I believe in personal freedom. If it is your land and the zoning allows for it, you should be allowed to do so, if the neighbors do not like it then they can purchase the land and keep it natural...

Either way I would not think they would have to much to worry about as in rapid spread, some places remain isolated due to time and distance and this LoLo place sounds pretty isolated and beautiful...

I have to disagree with a lot of this. Growing up in Montana, I'm very protective of growth. But I'm pretty close to the situation with Lolo Peak and think that some of the things I'm hearing in this thread are not real accurate. I'll try to expand when I have more time.

Quote:

---

My main beef with the Bitterroot Resort is that the skiing will be extremely mediocre.

---

Quote:

---

That shot off Carlton Ridge is like 1000 vert at the most, and check out the traverse back to the base area. This is sooooooo not about creating a ski area for serious skiers.

---

Completely agree with you. Maybe local 'zoo mags would get a kick out of skiing something besides snowbowl within a 45min drive?

When I used to work in Missoula we were already wiring many homes down in the 'root so the sprawl is already hot and heavy, resort or no resort.


I vote on leaving Lo the way it is! Man this makes me miss The Lumberjack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midget

You are a retard, a good portion of the newer golf courses irrigate with reclaimed wastewater (treated) that is held in the water hazards on the course.

---

interesting. this golf course will use treated wastewater from its state of the art shit-straining facility. you think they'll have a separate path though the plant for golf course runoff?

Yesterday a crew of 12 good friends were able to sample what the B-root resort has to offer. Given that it was a free day of cat skiing, it was hard to pass up (<<<< this offer is open to everyone, call them if you are interested).

The cat picked us up at the base of the hill. There wasn't much snow as you can see.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1169775061

As we rolled up the hill in the cat, it was evident that there wasn't really every going to be any tree skiing at the base to 6000 foot level. Snow depths ranged from 1" to 12" near 6500'. However, I will say that they have poured a ton of money into prepping the slopes. They have removed all stumps and rocks, brought in topsoil and planted grass. Most of the runs we skied on had anywhere from 3" to 6" of firm hardpack on them. They had not blown any snow (no snowmaking installed yet), so it was good to see what it would be like w/out manmade help.


All the pitches of the runs were good to go, nice rollers etc. None of the runs cut so far can't be considered step, but they would be good maching groomers.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1169775061

They had a yurt on the top of the property where they fed us bullshit...er I mean lunch
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1169775061

The temps had really warmed up the day before, thus thorougly fucking up the snow. The snow had about an inch of crust on top, making for very difficult and super ugly turns. Despite that, the peeps still had a good time. Turns out a super rockstar was in our midst. He's in a band that rhymes with Girl Spam.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1169776132

^^^^^^^10 points for anyone who can name the guy in the back seat^^^^^^^

All in all it was pretty interesting to hear the corporate pitch. They are poised and just waiting to hear from the FS on their new forest plan. My take on it was, the lower mountain will be groomer only (never enough snow to venture off piste). If they were to get up into the alpine, then and only then would there be true expert/fun terrain.

And for those that said the shots off Carlton ridge are only 1000 ft. Better take another look.

Quote:

---

(<<<< this offer is open to everyone, call them if you are interested)

---

But it sure helps when Jeff Ament is rolling with....

Quote:

---

And for those that said the shots off Carlton ridge are only 1000 ft. Better take another look.

---

Definitely wasn't knockin your stoke. Heck, it's another local mountain for zoo mags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KoKopeLLi

But it sure helps when Jeff Ament is rolling with....

---

DINGDING! Actually they had no clue who he was. I didn't even know till I asked "What do you do in town?"

"I'm in a rock band" (all humble)

"Oh, which one?"

:fmicon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakofSnow

And for those that said the shots off Carlton ridge are only 1000 ft. Better take another look.

---

If I could find a picture bigger than 200x200 I will take another shot at it. Does it look like good terrain when you get up there? Got more pics? I would love to be wrong about the terrain, but I am still waiting for something, anything, to give a realistic idea of their plans.

Looks like some rad skiing. ;)

Looks alright. What's the word on Feb. 10?

Yeah Ament's a zzzzoulian. He's brought the band to town before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

interesting. this golf course will use treated wastewater from its state of the art shit-straining facility. you think they'll have a separate path though the plant for golf course runoff?

---

The level of treatment of the water used to irrigate those GC's is the same level of treatment that is used before that water is put back into rivers, streams, etc. so no it won't be required.....doing what you suggest would be...well, retarted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakofSnow

I didn't know Butte had a ski resort? Oh wait....that was a just a great example of a poor analogy.

---

Got me on the poor ananlogy, but you get my point. Trashed environment. Shitty cut runs near wilderness don't look a whole lot better than a open pit mind. Oh wait, still a shitty.... Oh fuck it. Nevermind.

Maclay's an asshole, a lazy shit who's never worked a day in his life -- unlike his father and grandfather, who were hardworking simple men who tended to a ranch and respected not only the land but their neighbors.

The "resort" is ill-conceived. The golf course will suck ass, the terrain's not good for that. The ski runs already suck a rancid festering pustule-laden johnson. The whole thing is about building multimillion dollar "luxury homes" for out-of-staters. Having rich folk move to your area as their last place of fun, without really contributing any serious forms of employment to an area, is the worst kind of "economic development" that a downtrodden economy can experience... well, not as bad as strip mining, clearcut logging, or having a huge Superfund waste pit, but none of those things seems possible 'round here.

Maclay wrote a fucked-up lying piece of advertisement puffery in the form of a "sincere" postcard entreaty to the area's residents, asking them to reserve judgment and quit spreading false rumors about him and his resort. Here is how I replied to him in a nice letter. Next post....

From my blog...

Dear Mr Maclay

Thank you for the very personal touch of a generic postcard addressed to "Resident" at my address. I found it quite amusing that you have tried to persuade me to offer my support to your proposed "resort," without even taking the time to figure out who I am or what my name is. I can only guess that the reason for your approach is that I am supposed to be in awe of you -- and so very far beneath you that I should know your name, yet you do not need to know mine. But this really isn't such a big problem for me, as I am used to such arrogance from the spoiled children of self-made men, and I have been advised by many life-long residents of Florence that you are such a child of a self-made man. You see, I have taken the time and made the effort to find out about you and your history in the Florence area, as well as the history of your family. I only wish you had made the effort to do likewise about those whom you beg for support.

Now, before I can consider whether to offer my support of your "resort," I must ask a few questions of you. I would like to take the liberty of addressing your postcard's precise wording, and then making specific inquiries on various statements within that wording. I hope this is not too problematic for you. I assume you were being quite careful when you chose the precise wording of your postcard's message.

Your postcard begins,

There's been a lot of speculation about what our plans are for the Maclay Ranch. I'd like to set the record straight so you can form your own opinion based on the facts.

I would have to agree that there has been such a lot of speculation. However, I think that is primarily because you have been quite secretive and often disingenuous about what are your plans. And if you desire to "set the record straight," I would suggest beginning by doing so in the postcard you sent. Unfortunately, you chose to continue in your existing course of action, which is to confuse and obfuscate the issues with salesmanship and marketing-speak. Such as,

There were about 500 families in the Valley when the Maclays settled here. Now, after over one hundred years of farming and ranching, there are only a handful of the original landowners who make a living through agriculture.

While this is a rather pleasant (albeit biased) account of your family's history in Florence, I do not quite understand why you emphasize that many of the original homesteaders no longer operate working ranches or make a living through agriculture. I assume that is because you are going to soften me and other readers up for the idea that the best use of your land is to develop it for rich out-of-staters who are willing to pay over $1 million for a poorly, hastily made house on land that you are glorifying with a 4th rate ski slope array, and a craftily chosen name that includes the term "resort." But perhaps I'm getting carried away here. Let's move onto the next part of your postcard's message...

Subdivisions and sprawl have consumed the rest.

Mr Maclay, I'm going to suggest something very basic here. If you intend to "set the record straight" with some facts, perhaps you could give some factual support for the notion that "subdivisions and sprawl have consumed" the majority of the former ranches in Florence. And when you offer those facts, please be precise about how you define "subdivision" and how you describe "sprawl," because what you're planning for your "resort" is a subdivision full of sprawl.

I started looking for another way to preserve my family heritage, provide a year-round income and honor the spirit of the land.

I'm curious here. What does your "family heritage" have to do with whether I support your "resort"? And for that matter, what does a rich man's "resort" have to do with your family's heritage? My understanding is that your father and grandfather were simple, humble men who worked the land and were generous to the people of the community of Florence. That doesn't sound much like a heritage that supports reducing the locals in Florence and Lolo to being peasants and serfs to you and the rich folk you want to buy shares in your "resort." Can you help me with this point?

Additionally, I suggest that if you want to have a year-round income, you can find a job. Like most of your neighbors have done.

And if you intend to "honor the spirit of the land," perhaps you could explain how a 4th rate ski slope array and a rich man's overpriced "resort" do any sort of honor to the spirit of the land.

Let's get back to your postcard. It continues,

Bitterroot Resort is my vision for the future: not a disjointed group of buildings, ski lifts and homes -- a well and intelligently planned year-round community that is a model of environmental stewardship with a vibrant culture, and lots of open space that preserves and protects this place I call home.

Mr Maclay, I do not think the problem that most objectors have to your "resort" is any sort of "disjointed" nature of development. Rather, the problem I encounter most often in my own investigation and in conversation with fellow Missoulians is that you seek to change quite radically the nature of your family's ranch. You seek to develop an expensive "resort" that is designed to cater to wealthy out-of-staters and is designed to focus on a subdivision comprised largely of very expensive houses. Your primary intent appears, from all angles and perspectives, to be helping you get very, very rich without having to do anything except enlist a bunch of overpriced out-of-state "consultants" who know nothing about this Valley and nothing about the people who live here. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Maclay. Tell me what sort of work you have been doing. What labor have you undertaken, you personally? What physical labor? Have you done anything other than spend the money that your father and grandfather made?

I have a world-class team of consultants helping to shape the plans on what continues to be our family ranch.

I'm afraid that your enlisting a "world-class team of consultants" is quite easily translated as follows: you have hired people who know nothing about this Valley or its inhabitants, and who do not care about what happens here, other than to make you wealthy. If you cared about those who live here, you wouldn't need a team of consultants made up of wealthy out-of-state investment bankers, real estate developers, venture capitalists, and deceitful advertisement copywriters.

So you can see how it is that many people have been wondering why you are electing to try to persuade us all on the merits of your "resort", and why there has been so much of what you have called "speculation" -- can't you?

Continuing on in your postcard's message,

I want you to know that by using the latest technology, Bitterroot Resort can use water in a way that enhances the watershed: domestic water, snowmaking and golf course irrigation combined.

Mr Maclay, you cannot enhance the watershed by removing more of its water and sending it into the sky for evaporation (golf course watering; artificial snowmaking). Your plan for golf course irrigation and snowmaking invariably requires that you use more of the Carlton Creek watershed's water that currently feeds the Bitterroot River and eventually the Clark Fork, not less of it. If you truly believe that you will "enhance the watershed," then you have been sold a pig in a poke by those high-priced "consultants" that you have engaged. Perhaps you might want to study the sciences of ecology and thermodynamics. Within those two fields you will find the information that puts the lie in your statement alleging that you will enhance the watershed. You will not, and cannot, enhance the watershed by dewatering it beyond the usage to which it's currently put.

CONTINUED BELOW