Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not looking for touristy areas? That would eliminate many of places mentioned, including all or almost all of close in Kalispell area. But it depends how touristy is too much. Maybe Choteau or Augusta, west of Great Falls could be possibities.
Butte working on a food co-op: https://buttefood.coop/
Have been working on it for years and anticipate it may take 6 plus more months.
Alpine zone is higher in Montana than Washington.
Will "jobs" in your business fields pay like in Washington? I dunno, could vary by location. Many pay scales are quite a but less. Something to try to check.
Yes or even just a few local farm store options with local area produce/meat. We decided nothing east of Missoula. I need rivers/lakes and trees. Any other suggestions for NW MT or ID? If I don’t live in the “touristy” it might be ok. What elevation do I need to be at like 8-10k? We plan to still work out of state and transfer business when possible. I love alpine jagged mountain ranges, can you think of any that are less busy? I have been to Pintlers and Beartooths. Any favorite scenic drives?
We are going to go home that way after we hit 2. How does this area compare to north of Whitefish? I like Missoula as a bike friendly/foodie city, but way too busy for us. Not digging the Bitterroot Valley, cool to visit but we need more water and forests. Do you have any other suggestions? We are arborists/contractors and plan to relocate our business even if it’s just 4-6 mos a year. Thanks, CF!
You're welcome! I have to say that I am not familiar with the area north of Whitefish (along the lake?) at all, only the area between Whitefish and Kalispell. And that is hardly an undiscovered country anymore. But if you're looking for a forested area, relatively free of tourists (so far), with a river running through it, include the area of Libby-Troy-Bonners Ferry on 2 along the Kootenai, with a side trip "up the Yaak." I've been told there is development even up there, but I've also been told it is as wild as it gets in MT these days. Grizzly country.
However, with the forest, the tall mountains, and the wide expanse of the Clark Fork Reservoir by Noxon, the mighty river flowing into Lake Pend Oreille, and the enormous lake itself, I'd vote for something along 200. (Of course I'm biased!)
Have a great trip! I assume you'll be coming down 56 from 2 to 200. Before you turn south on 56, be sure to stop at the Kootenai Falls and walk across the hanging bridge. Enjoy Bull Lake, Bull River, and the ancient Ross Creek Cedars if you have time for a short excursion.
I hope you find what you're looking for! At any rate you'll see great scenery.
I figured the Flathead would be 'touristy' before we decided to make the move here for my wife's job opportunity 5yrs ago.
But the pace of growth/development and rampant tourism has far surpassed what we were expecting.
We can't wait to get the hell out of here when she decides to wind things down.
The urbanization of the West is in full swing ... I don't know where we'll end up, but we're not inclined to stick around here for the long haul, at least not full time. Don't even get me started on the weather ...
All the beautiful scenery is sullied by the swarming mass of humanity invading the area ... it's sad to see so much land going under the blade, never to see crops and wildlife again. Traffic sucks, infrastructure sucks ... Kalispell is imposing water restrictions because growth has outpaced capacity.
Near Kalispell you might want to look at Ashley Lake, or Little Bitterroot or other lakes in that area. It is subalpine but might be enough.
Maybe someplace east and or slightly south of Eureka would have the higher mountain views and access you prefer.
Or along the Jocko river / lakes. The Mission Mtns are sharply upright (though not that tall) and wild to very wild. Permits required from tribe for much of the area.
If Seeley Lake has enough business, you could consider living somewhere north of there on Hwy 83, perhaps in the Condon area. Near Holland and Lindbergh lakes. Must adapt to heavy snow. Loving it preferred, but adaptation required.
There some great views to the west near Hamilton and south to Darby and Conner. Can do fairly easy valley / "canyon" walks or turn uphill for some serious / non-leisurely elevation gain to get to ridgetops.
In northern Idaho would the Selkirks be "enough"? Pack River access. Tops out at 7k but one valley is alpine like with huge expanses of exposed rock. North of Sandpoint, Samuels to Bonners Ferry to live.
Eastern British Columbia has plenty more wild mountains / rivers / glaciers if willing to drive to it and really go into the wild. No place in US is closer to eastern BC than Bonners Ferry area. The Bugaboos were one of the wildest / awesome places I've been.
How much of a town and "cool town" you want / need to be "near" (and how near) will affect the overall desirability of some of these areas.
Plenty of scenic drives with rivers, lakes, forest. Mountain views from the main roads less frequent but some will share peeks of the peaks. If you have time, go up the Inside North Fork Road toward PoleBridge and go up to one of those western Glacier NP lakes.
Happy Long winter! My husband and I are considering a move and relocating our small excavation/arborist contractor company. Can locals compare the Flathead Valley to the Bitterroot Valley in terms of access to outdoor recreation? and SW Montana (Butte areas?) which counties/towns have the best access to forests & wilderness areas that are more small business friendly? We are from Western WA and not looking for anything related expect the alpine wilderess
We love the North Cascades and Olympics. Alaska is somewhere we might consider in the future. Looking for forested mountainous areas that are still wild & pristine. We live a minimal low stress life. Not city folks. Lovers of small mountain/charming towns that value an active lifestyle, sustainable agriculture, farms, gardening, alpine lakes, farm to table, dog friendly, accessability to mountains, freshwater. We can be flexible on most of these. We are strongly considering the Flathead/Kallispell area since we would like to be within 30-45 mins of a "city" for business and ski areas/ the backcountry. Ideally we would to hike/bike and ski out our front door. Any locals have any suggestions on smaller towns that might have a gear/bike store, local co-op, quality restaurants, and value sustainability and community? moreso about being around quality people.
Clean water
Lower air pollution
A strong, health conscious populace
Year round recreation: snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking, climbing, hiking, mtn biking, paddleboarding, whitewater
Prefer country/mountain towns over surburbia
Much love from the PNW!
Clean water = Boil order notices due to sudden spring run-offs Lower air pollution = Mountain valley inversions so bad that you can't see across the valley? A strong, health conscious populace = Virtue signaling populaces that couldn't make it in the great liberal coastal cities?
Year round recreation: snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking, climbing, hiking, mtn biking, paddleboarding, whitewater = Better bring your money with you.
We are strongly considering the Flathead/Kallispell area since we would like to be within 30-45 mins of a "city" for business and ski areas = Flathead/Kalispell ... Which, incidentally, is much more expensive to live in than Ballard, Shoreline, Kirkland, Redmond, or Edmonds, and you may find yourself having to travel to Spokane to get the good stuff for a decent price.
Building in the Flathead over the last 30+ years has had less to do with sustainability and community, and more to do with just plain money.
"Alpine" can be a loose term or a more strict one. Some people think of it as anywhere you are close to and see mountain tops or can get there quickly. Where it gets more snow and lasts longer. More strictly it is a life zone above where substantial trees can grow and survive long-term.
Whitefish Mountain is only 4400 feet at its base. Schweitzer, 4000. They have trees. Not absolutely everywhere but they can grow there. It would be a rare residential property (if any) in NW Montana or northern Idaho that I would consider / call truly alpine over "sub-alpine". Are there any houses above 7,000 or 8,000 feet in either place? I dunno. I doubt it. 7-8k elevation is probably mostly treeless / "alpine" there. It is probably bare minimum elevation to be that there. Maybe a few mining or hunting inhold cabins without winter access by car. The alpine in NW Montana is in Glacier NP and the upper reaches of some of the National Forests.
In the North Cascades, the Park Service defines it as above 7,000 feet. It varies a bit places to place. Bozeman area has lots of alpine areas nearby and probably has more houses closer to it (into the Aspens and perhaps into meadows above where they can grow). Big Sky's base is 7200 feet and there are probably houses at 8,000 feet or higher. Where exactly is treeline / alpine there? I dunno. Probably 8-9k, depending on slope orientation to sun.
A true alpine lake would not have trees around it.
But others might talk about it differently. Some might call it alpine if you can see at a fairly near distance true Alpine from a spot. Or looser than that.
You're welcome! I have to say that I am not familiar with the area north of Whitefish (along the lake?) at all, only the area between Whitefish and Kalispell. And that is hardly an undiscovered country anymore. But if you're looking for a forested area, relatively free of tourists (so far), with a river running through it, include the area of Libby-Troy-Bonners Ferry on 2 along the Kootenai, with a side trip "up the Yaak." I've been told there is development even up there, but I've also been told it is as wild as it gets in MT these days. Grizzly country.
However, with the forest, the tall mountains, and the wide expanse of the Clark Fork Reservoir by Noxon, the mighty river flowing into Lake Pend Oreille, and the enormous lake itself, I'd vote for something along 200. (Of course I'm biased!)
Have a great trip! I assume you'll be coming down 56 from 2 to 200. Before you turn south on 56, be sure to stop at the Kootenai Falls and walk across the hanging bridge. Enjoy Bull Lake, Bull River, and the ancient Ross Creek Cedars if you have time for a short excursion.
I hope you find what you're looking for! At any rate you'll see great scenery.
We are heading home 2 to 200? I wanted to check out BF area but it might be out of our way? I am hoping to spend a few days around Sandpoint. If you have any turquoise alpine lake hiking suggestions I’ll all ears!
I have high expectations coming from the North Cascades and have been underwhelmed in the Flathead lol.
Glacier is on the next trip because we had our pup. It’s a nightmare right now with tourists anyway!
I figured the Flathead would be 'touristy' before we decided to make the move here for my wife's job opportunity 5yrs ago.
But the pace of growth/development and rampant tourism has far surpassed what we were expecting.
We can't wait to get the hell out of here when she decides to wind things down.
The urbanization of the West is in full swing ... I don't know where we'll end up, but we're not inclined to stick around here for the long haul, at least not full time. Don't even get me started on the weather ...
All the beautiful scenery is sullied by the swarming mass of humanity invading the area ... it's sad to see so much land going under the blade, never to see crops and wildlife again. Traffic sucks, infrastructure sucks ... Kalispell is imposing water restrictions because growth has outpaced capacity.
Sigh.
I can’t believe the sprawl - It is sad because the whole Valley is gorgeous! I def would prefer it in the winter when it’s leas busy. We have no intentions of being here other than part time if we decide to either.
"Alpine" can be a loose term or a more strict one. Some people think of it as anywhere you are close to and see mountain tops or can get there quickly. Where it gets more snow and lasts longer. More strictly it is a life zone above where substantial trees can grow and survive long-term.
Whitefish Mountain is only 4400 feet at its base. Schweitzer, 4000. They have trees. Not absolutely everywhere but they can grow there. It would be a rare residential property (if any) in NW Montana or northern Idaho that I would consider / call truly alpine over "sub-alpine". Are there any houses above 7,000 or 8,000 feet in either place? I dunno. I doubt it. 7-8k elevation is probably mostly treeless / "alpine" there. It is probably bare minimum elevation to be that there. Maybe a few mining or hunting inhold cabins without winter access by car. The alpine in NW Montana is in Glacier NP and the upper reaches of some of the National Forests.
In the North Cascades, the Park Service defines it as above 7,000 feet. It varies a bit places to place. Bozeman area has lots of alpine areas nearby and probably has more houses closer to it (into the Aspens and perhaps into meadows above where they can grow). Big Sky's base is 7200 feet and there are probably houses at 8,000 feet or higher. Where exactly is treeline / alpine there? I dunno. Probably 8-9k, depending on slope orientation to sun.
A true alpine lake would not have trees around it.
But others might talk about it differently. Some might call it alpine if you can see at a fairly near distance true Alpine from a spot. Or looser than that.
I realized it’s much higher here than in the PNW. I was underwhelmed with the Flathead Mtns, even the missions. Plan to go back in the fall for a trip because we had our pup. We are spoiled with our high jagged peaks and ranges. I’ve never been to SW CO but it’s probably what I am looking minus a few things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clark Fork vs Whitefish
