Temporary move to Montana in July/August - Big Sky or Missoula? (Bozeman: ski resort, rentals)

[hilokya]

I'm looking to get away from the Texas heat during July and August, I've found a few vacation rentals that are somewhat affordable and allow pets. Finding both has proven difficult. I'm self-employed and will be working from "home" and primarily want to be close to hiking (mountains). Also don't want to get too isolated as it will be just me and my dogs. I've found rentals in the following: Big Sky, East Missoula and a potential in Missoula that I'm waiting to receive info about so I'm not sure of the location. So, my questions are:
1) The house in Big Sky is in the valley and the area around it looks a little like suburbia with mountains around. Is that an accurate description of Big Sky? Would it be an okay place to live for a few months?
2) The East Missoula rental is by far the cheapest. So cheap that it concerns me. I've seen a few comments about East Missoula not getting much sun (that doesn't bother me) but another referencing crime statistics. On Street View the house and neighborhood look okay. Nothing fancy but fine for me. Being right by the river seems appealing. The house is located south of the highway. Is this a safe area?

As for other cities, I've looked at Kalispell, Whitefish, and Bozeman and a few other small towns but haven't found anything in my price range that accepts pets.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[NW Crow]

BigSky is a fairly small ski base area with condos and private homes. It would be an excellent base for summer living / mountain hiking if your work is self-contained at home, you don't need or want to be in the city much or often and you are comfortable hiking in wilderness. You'd need to go about a half-hour to Gallatin Gateway or 45+ minutes to Bozeman for most things. Doing that 1-3 times a week might be fine for some. Doing it more than 3 times a week, it might become more sensible to live lower down or you'd have to be comfortable leaving the dogs behind or taking them with and leaving them in the car some.

Missoula or another MT city would be better if you want city services & amenities more often.

Missoula has both mild and wild walking nearby including various city parks for quick & easy dog exercise, at least one official off-leash area and others were it is probably commonplace.

Not sure if you hike or want to hike with your dogs in MT some or always. There are various issues and points of view about dogs in the wilderness, leashed or not. On second thought I won't lead into it too far, but I guess I'll briefly mention the topic to suggest you think some about the issues involved, if you haven't already.

[Walter Greenspan]

If you're looking to get away from the Texas heat during July and August, then Montana might not be where you want to be in July and August, where, while humidity is lower than in Texas, daily highs can exceed 100F on back-to-back-to-back days.

[NW Crow]

There are spots in Montana (mainly in eastern MT) that are warmer than Big Sky or even Missoula in the summer and they can be flat hot and pretty often. The amount of sun you can get if outdoors for long stretches adds to the impact, especially if not taking enough precautions.

The government data I checked shows Big Sky at an elevation over 6,500 foot normally only gets a few days over 90 degrees and the highest in the last 20 years was 95.

Missoula is lower in elevation, gets about twenty-some days a year over 90 and got as high as 105 a long time ago.

[NYMTman]

Big Sky is really nice if you can afford it. Summers are extremely mild and pleasant, with high temps reaching into the 70's and nights dropping into the 40's. Missoula is a bit warmer, but still cooler than most other places outside of MT. Back to back days above 100 are extremely rare.... Summers in western/southwestern Montana are usually mild no matter how you slice it. Certainly they are mild compared to almost anywhere away from the Pacific coast.

[bongo403]

The two are like night and day. Big Sky: ski resort community, so it's relatively slow in the summer. I've spent some time there in the summer and it is VERY beautiful. The mountains around it are breathtaking, and the wildlife abounds. If you seek a place to commune with nature in beautiful surroundings, you'll find it there.

Missoula, on the other hand, is Montana's second largest city. What you'll find there in the summer is farmer's markets, outdoor concerts, music and art festivals, and lots of other social activities. The area isn't nearly as beautiful as Big Sky, but you'll have everything you need right near by and lots to do. It still isn't far from outdoors and wilderness areas, so you can still get your nature fix, but it won't quite be right out your back door.

East Missoula is generally just a neighborhood in Missoula - it's a bit run-down, quite a few trailer courts. It's the kind of place where you'll want to keep your car locked at night, but it really isn't the kind of place where you'll need to worry about your personal safety - Missoula just isn't that kind of town. You're saying it's south of the highway and along the river - do you mean south of i90? If so, that area tends to be a lot nicer and not run down. You'll have noise from the freeway and railroad tracks, but that's really the only drawback.

So, I guess it should come down to what you're looking for - larger city activity, or small community beauty and solitude.

[hilokya]

Thanks to all for your quick responses. I can handle back to back days over 100. I don't like them but understand it happens up there. It's the back to back months over 100 that get to me. It's looking like this summer might be worse than usual. We're in a drought and its already getting really hot (upper 80s to low 90s). I decided last September that I had enough when there was a cold front in the forecast with temps in the 80s expected. 80 degrees and cold front should never be used in the same sentence.

Sounds like Big Sky might be the best choice for cooler temps. I'd like to be closer to a city but don't think it will be a problem for a few months.

NW Crow - I really hoped to take the dogs on day trips. I assumed that if dogs are allowed on a leash and picked up after then it would "okay"; however, I wouldn't take them backpacking. Probably more of my hiking would be less wild if I have them with me. I guess the next question besides cooler temps would be which place would offer more access to day trips where dogs would are allowed? Also, if you have time, I'd love to hear your thoughts in general about dogs in the wilderness. The only thing we have to worry about around here are rattlesnakes. Thanks!

[hilokya]

Thanks bongo403. Yes, the rental in East Missoula is south of I-90. It's basically 2 streets sandwiched between the railroad and the river.

Based on your description of Big Sky and the fact that it's a little cooler than Missoula, I'll probably go with Big Sky. However, I just posted a response to NW Crow regarding dog-friendly hiking. I didn't expect to take them in the backcountry but hoped to find some decent dayhikes. Any thoughts on which city would be better for this? Do many people take their dogs hiking with them?

[Montana Griz]

Originally Posted by hilokya

.......... Also, if you have time, I'd love to hear your thoughts in general about dogs in the wilderness. The only thing we have to worry about around here are rattlesnakes. Thanks!

Dogs must be on leash, by law, when you take them into wilderness areas. Depending on where (which wilderness area) exactly you may be hiking, you could encounter the following: bear, elk, moose, mountain lion, wolves, porcupine, skunks, horses, humans and naturally deer. The leash requirement is enforced not only to protect wildlife, but also to protect your dog(s) and to allow other people using the wilderness to not be bothered by dogs running free.

To pick up after your dog(s) would be expected regardless of where you take them.

Hope you enjoy your time in Montana. (I have enjoyed time spent on Mustang Island off the coast from Corpus.)

[NW Crow]

One Montana National Forest site says this:

"In many Wilderness Areas, developed campgrounds, picnic areas and day use areas, dogs are required to be on a leash. Most other areas of within the National Forests do not require your dog to be on a leash, but they should be under your control at all times. We recommend that you keep your dog on a leash when you are around other forest users, other dogs, or are in bear country."

They can be in all but a few state parks.

If you intend to take your dog on a leash for day hikes only that reduces the issues some and it is pretty common. I might have raised concerns about this more than I should have, but I didn't know your intentions or awareness of the possible issues.

Both Missoula and Big Sky have lots places where dogs "can" go with you, especially if leashed. There are really only a few places they can't go on the trails at all like Glacier National Park. Montana Griz's post cover the basic issue with dogs in the woods. It basically comes down to possible or actual disturbance of wildlife and some different opinions about where they "should" go. Responsible dog control minimizes the issues but doesn't eliminate them entirely in all cases. For the bear issue, dogs can complicate things; but if you face that situation maintain control, don't let the dog go on the offensive and probably carry pepper spray many or most places, have it ready for quick-draw and read the instructions beforehand.