Bozeman or Missoula? (Helena, Livingston, Big Sky: renters, homes, job outlook)

[StephenGoods]

The girlfriend and I will be moving back to Montana in about a year.. But torn between Bozeman or Missoula. I have a few questions.
We will be moving from Fargo, ND.
We would like our rent to stay no more than $1,100-$1,200 a month for a 2 bedroom.
A little bit about myself and her, I will be graduating with a Criminal Justice degree, and my dream is to become a Park Ranger. She will be graduating with a Health Education/Phy Ed degree.
I was thinking Bozeman because I am a HUGE snowboarder and I would love to be right there with Bridger and Big Sky. But also Missoula because of the bigger population and more jobs.
I know they are both pretty expensive, but which is more expensive overall? (Rent, etc) I was thinking Bozeman.
I would love to get a job with Yellowstone as a ranger and drive the 1.2 hours from Bozeman, but would also like to work in a National Forest that are surrounding Missoula.
If anybody has some info on which way to steer me with differences according to our wants and needs, it would be greatly appreciated.

[406FIRE309]

Bozeman- because it's not Missoula! I really have no idea - I just like Bozeman a lot better.

[Senah]

I would steer you towards Missoula for sure. I say this living in Bozeman and working in the healthcare field. Bozeman is much, much more expensive than anywhere else in the state. Rentals are very hard to come by, and are quite expensive, and the rental companies are not on the renters side, so they tend to take advantage of renters here (for example when we moved out of our place last month, they charged us $50 to change 1 lightbulb and docked our deposit for made up things). If you end up wanting to buy, it is CRAZY expensive. Look at zillow.com or trulia.com and compare 2 bedroom homes to buy here vs. Minneapolis or Minot and you'll see what I mean.

There is 1 hospital here that hires nurses, and some private practices, but because it is beautiful, there are great restaurants, and the skiing is great - as you mentioned - people from all over the state want to move here so the pay for medical professionals is awful and getting a job is competitive. As for the parks service, the drive to Yellowstone is pretty far (2 hours, not 1.2) and through a beautiful but dangerous canyon (I do it often for work), and can be a slog. Be sure you get good tires (there are a LOT of overturned semis and truck slide-offs in the winter) and you need to buy recovery and emergency stuff. There is a lot of forest around here if you can get to be part of the Forest Service, but they did recently lay off a bunch of people, so you might want to see if you know anyone in the departments to see what the future holds in terms of hiring.

Being in ND, I don't know if you hunt at all, but Bozeman has turned into somewhat of an anti-hunting place, where there is zero access around here and people really are not supportive and sometimes harass hunters. Fishing is still beautiful but very crowded.

Missoula is cheaper and has more job options, as it also has St. Patrick's and lots of clinics. Having double our population also helps with jobs. Definitely doesn't have the skiing/snowboarding, but it is a cool town. Great fishing around there and less pressure than Bozeman because there aren't as many people who have bought up the land and prevented access. I am not sure how the hunting access is if you are interested in that at all. Perhaps a Missoula local can chime in?

To Sum it Up about Bozeman:

Pros = excellent food, cultural events, skiing/snowboarding, good schools, views, airport, nice weather
Cons = $$$$$, mostly out of staters, poor land access, poor job outlook, urban sprawl, city/county bureaucracy

[historyfan]

A Natnl parks' job would be the Department of Interior-- check job listings. Yellowstone is considered one of the crown jewels, so it would be unlikely to be a park ranger there first. With Montana, unless you have a serious nest egg, the job determines where you live. The entire state has sweet spots, even Eastern Montana.

[RotseCherut]

Bozeman if you are a rich yuppie.. Missoula if you are a rich hippie.. Sorry, just generalizing.. I'd be interested to know which place is better, but from what I have been hearing, it sounds like Bozeman is more Californized and I wouldn't want to move to Montana to feel like I am in some snobby Californian resort town. I already had enough of that problem when I was living in Bend, Oregon. It sucked being an Oregonian and feeling like a foreigner in your own state, surrounded by wealthy Californians.

[EastCoastRefugee2]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

Bozeman if you are a rich yuppie.. Missoula if you are a rich hippie.. Sorry, just generalizing.. I'd be interested to know which place is better, but from what I have been hearing, it sounds like Bozeman is more Californized and I wouldn't want to move to Montana to feel like I am in some snobby Californian resort town. I already had enough of that problem when I was living in Bend, Oregon. It sucked being an Oregonian and feeling like a foreigner in your own state, surrounded by wealthy Californians.

thank your for the generalizations, because if accurate they contain kernels of truth

[Threerun]

Actually I would have to say Helena would be better than either, at least starting out. Plenty of forest around, state jobs could be a back up, fairly economical to live (by Missoula or Bozeman standards) and you do have access to some skiing, although not Bridger or Big Sky, but you can certainly drive there.

If I had to pick between Bozeman or Missoula- I'd pick Bozeman, or at least that area. Maybe Livingston or somewhere on the outskirts.