Comment on the Bridger Bowl expansion!!

[FreakofSnow]

Hey All,

I just wanted to put this APB out there for anyone that has skied Bridger Bowl. They are have a sweet proposal on the table for 700 add't acres, expanding the Ridge. The last comment period they had in 1999 was a very weak showing; I think everybody thought that everybody else would comment. We all know that we drool on those areas just out of our reaches beyond the ropes, we all know we complain about not having enough variety. So do your part and send in your comment, it will go along way.

If the permit gets approved, Bridger Bowl could expand to the north and south in coming years, adding six lifts, 16 new runs and more than 700 acres to its existing operation.

Below is some background and the link you can go to find all the documentation as well as the comment page URL.

PURPOSE AND NEED
The Forest Service and Bridger Bowl management worked cooperatively to develop the purpose and need for this proposal. The overall purpose of the projects within the Bridger Bowl Master Development Plan Update 2002 is to improve the current recreation experience at Bridger Bowl, and address the expected growth in skier visits over the 40-year duration. Over the past 50 year operational period of Bridger Bowl, the ski area has seen increases in annual skier visits, with annual skier visits growth reflecting the growth in population in the region. This growth in annual skier visits is affected by the amount and timing of snowfall among other factors.

While the regional population has increased, other regional ski areas that compete with Bridger Bowl have expanded. Despite the increased number and size of the competition, Bridger Bowl continues to attract a high percentage of local skiers, and guests often experience crowded conditions in lift lines and on popular ski trails during busy periods.

Prior to the expansion of the parking and current expansion of the base area facilities, Bridger Bowl visitors regularly found crowded conditions in the parking and lodge facilities. These crowding conditions resulted in decreases in the largest single day (peak day) skier visits. Previous Bridger Bowl MDPs indicated the need for expanded base facilities; focus group studies conducted by Bridger Bowl in 1999 reconfirmed the need for improved facilities and “uncrowded” skiing.

Three needs must be met to achieve this overall purpose:
1) continue to provide uncrowded skiing by better accommodating high demand periods
2) provide for new trails and lifts to retain existing skiers and attract new skiers by providing terrain variety and a range of trails for all ability levels
3) Accommodate anticipated growth while maintaining the desired uncrowded slope conditions.



Bridger Bowl Project page - http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/ind...s.bridger_bowl

Comment page - Comments can be posted at the bottom of this page http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/ind...s.bridger_bowl or alternatively you can send it directly to comments-northern-gallatin@fs.fed.us , with the subject line: "Bridger Bowl"


TIPS ON COMMENTING:
1. Offer supporting information for your opinions
a. Your comment should be an opinion statement, backed by factual information or personal experience (i.e. Snow quality in Slushmans and Bradley Meadow is excellent and would be great for early season)
b. Be specific, comparative
c. Comments are considered on content not quantity
2. Don’t say things like: “I like the plan, we need to expand”
3. DO SAY THINGS LIKE:
a. “The mountain is tracked out on powder day in 1 hour. Adding more terrain, especially to the north where avalanche control is less complicated, would provide more powder skiing for everyone”
b. “The Gallatin Valley is growing at a tremendous rate and I am concerned with the lift lines continually getting longer each year.”
c. “Due to easier avalanche control, the Bradley Meadow’s area could open earlier than other areas on deep powder days”
d. “Bridger Bowl lack long ski/snowboard runs for experts, having access to the Slushman’s area would provide long continuous fall-line runs on advanced terrain.”
e. “The north facing terrain of Bradley Meadow holds snow well and it would offer early season skiing/snowboarding. It is also shelterd by the southerly winds that can sometime shut down the other lifts.”
f. “With the new lodge built, I feel that BB can now adequately handle more skiers/snowboarders well into the future.”
g. “Additional terrain will help retain skiers’ and help the local economy.”
4. Make the comments personal – this carries much more weight with the decision-makers if the comments contain first-hand experience.

Please take a few minutes to review the info at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/ind...s.bridger_bowl and SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS!

Thanks!

[Buster Highmen]

I skied there a bunch back in the neonmolithic era, when they'd let us ride the ropetow to the top. But the .pdf maps don't make a lot of sense. So, can you describe where the proposed expansion is? Viewer left or right? Lift to the top of the ridge?

Anyway, after spending all that stoopid cash on their splendiferous lodge, it would be great to see them actually add some more terrain.

[FreakofSnow]

yeah those docs can be a bit much, basically they are expanding to both the lookers left and right of the resort, 700 add't acres.

This pdf is the best pic on the web i can find:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/pro...g_2-3_Alt2.pdf

I took a screenshot, for easier access:

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...bexpansion.jpg

[CantDog]

FOS, what do you think about adding two ridge chairs(one on the N and S boundary as the pic shows). Seems like you'd put a lot more folks up on the ridge, would the extra terrain balance out the new folks?

Whats the reception in Bozeman like so far?

[FreakofSnow]

Originally posted by CantDog
FOS, what do you think about adding two ridge chairs(one on the N and S boundary as the pic shows). Seems like you'd put a lot more folks up on the ridge, would the extra terrain balance out the new folks?

Whats the reception in Bozeman like so far?

Actually, the 2 new lifts you see on the N and S boundary are Patrol access only, basically the same deal as you see on the main hike. The regular lift they are proposing over on Slushmans would seem like a pretty basic hike. Everyone that I have talked to is all for it, we need some new terrain to keep things lively around here and to deal with all the growth in the Gallatin Valley.

[baseWeldr]

thanks for the heads up freak, I'll have to add my .02 this weekend... they like north first I think cuz that hole between wolverine and bradleys mitigates avy danger (from above)- but I'm all for more acres to play on...

[CantDog]

Very cool. Will Wolverine area be accessible from the North side of the ridge?

[gearhead59715]

I think the expansion is bullshit and should not be encouraged. Bridger Bowl has only two facets of its operation that set it apart from every other mediocre smallish ski area in the world. One is the Ridge, which will suck if a lift is erected, it is not a large area and will be skied out as fast as the rest of the inbounds terrain is now (about 10:30 on a powder day). The other is the local, smalltown feel that Bridger is so famous for. This expansion is just another step toward resort homogenization, next will follow condos, on mountain skating rinks and legions of midwestern gapers (I know about this, I was one for a long time).
Having said that, my personal stake in this is that I don't ski inbounds anymore, and the terrain around bridger is very accessible, high quality and great for easy, short morning or afternoon tours. With the expansion this dimension of ski touring in the bridgers would be lost. Just my two cents, and no one cares anyway, but be careful what you wish for.

[crashnburn'd]

Originally posted by gearhead59715
One is the Ridge, which will suck if a lift is erected...

Originally posted by FreakofSnow
Actually, the 2 new lifts you see on the N and S boundary are Patrol access only, basically the same deal as you see on the main hike. The regular lift they are proposing over on Slushmans would seem like a pretty basic hike. Everyone that I have talked to is all for it, we need some new terrain to keep things lively around here and to deal with all the growth in the Gallatin Valley.

read first then post please

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by gearhead59715
This expansion is just another step toward resort homogenization, next will follow condos, on mountain skating rinks and legions of midwestern gapers.

Ever been there on a 3-day weekend? It's hard to not hear a Minnesota/NoDak accent...and oh yeah they're gapers for sure, don'tcha kno.

I think it's fantastic that BB is finally discussing expansion. There has been an ostrich mentality previously, stick your head into the ground to pretend that the masses aren't there and Bozeman isn't growing. Go out to N 19th and tell me that. BB management seemed to not care, enjoying the surge in lift revenue and the fact that it was making conditions poor for the fanatic fringe, a group that has consistently given them problems in the past. NoDak gapers are far easier to please. And I think the early closure this past year, and the replacement of the Pierre's Knob double with the triple a couple of years back (just increasing uphill capacity, not making the ride any quicker) were examples of this. It's awesome to hear BB officials even considering changes besides new multigazillion-dollar base and mid-mountain lodges.

[crashnburn'd]

Originally posted by Jetter
Ever been there on a 3-day weekend? It's hard to not hear a Minnesota/NoDak accent...and oh yeah they're gapers for sure, don'tcha kno.

As a Minnesotan with North Dakotan relatives, you've offended me. Just because I like a little air flowing onto my forehead....

[FreakofSnow]

Originally posted by gearhead59715
I think the expansion is bullshit and should not be encouraged. Bridger Bowl has only two facets of its operation that set it apart from every other mediocre smallish ski area in the world. One is the Ridge, which will suck if a lift is erected, it is not a large area and will be skied out as fast as the rest of the inbounds terrain is now (about 10:30 on a powder day). The other is the local, smalltown feel that Bridger is so famous for. This expansion is just another step toward resort homogenization, next will follow condos, on mountain skating rinks and legions of midwestern gapers (I know about this, I was one for a long time).
Having said that, my personal stake in this is that I don't ski inbounds anymore, and the terrain around bridger is very accessible, high quality and great for easy, short morning or afternoon tours. With the expansion this dimension of ski touring in the bridgers would be lost. Just my two cents, and no one cares anyway, but be careful what you wish for.

Very surprising response gearhead, didn't expect that. So you skied Bridger for one season right? Did that cover all the experiences you needed at bridger?

Don't get me wrong, i think that it is awesome that you bought the sled and did so much bc this year, as a matter of fact I too am buying a sled and will likely not have a pass at BB next year. More power to you for getting out there under your power, oh wait don't forget about the sled. From what you said above I would almost want to peg you as a dirty hippy, but then again you ride an old 4 stroke smoking sled.

Lets face it man, Bozeman ain't what is used to be, which has a direct effect on BB. Gallatin County is growing by leaps and bounds. If you think the current set up can support a population of 40-50000, you are sadly mistaken. Change is inevitable, you can live a bubble for a while, but sooner or later it will pop and I don't want to be the dude that has to stand in a line for 20 minutes only to ride a 2 minute fall line back down. The Ridge is the best inbounds hikable terrain anywhere, I can't deny that, but there is something to be said for diversified terrain and additional sustained pitches.

I would be really curious to see what basewelder has to say, he is an old dog that i'm sure has a good perspective on things.....

[sanjuanworm]

slushmans lift....good idea
wonder how the bohart people feel about the expansion on the alpine side.

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by sanjuanworm
wonder how the bohart people feel about the expansion on the alpine side.

tough. fruit-booters can learn to deal.

Seriously, I don't think it'd affect them too much because of how low-lying their resort is, compared to the ridgeline of the bridgers. BB's lower mountain would have a hard time growing in that direction, but I think the upper-mountain is higher than Bohart's stuff.

[Castro's]

Originally posted by Jetter
Ever been there on a 3-day weekend? It's hard to not hear a Minnesota/NoDak accent...and oh yeah they're gapers for sure, don'tcha kno.

That is an asinine comment. I've held passes to both Big Sky and Bridger and have skied at both places for 18 years. There's no doubt that there are a lot of gapers from N.D. and M.N. on three day weekends due to church trips and other gatherings. And I'll admit, I chuckle at them too, but that is their one time a year to experience the mountains and enjoy themselves. However, the longest lift lines I have seen at Bridger over the years is not on the three day weekends, its on pow days. The "gapers" generally hang out at the bottom and on the Alpine lift where they really don't bother anybody. But, to counter the gapers you'll notice that their are a number of patrolers and other employees who have ND MN roots. One thing that I found hilarious when I lived in Bozeman was the number of Montanan's who have never skied. It was outrageous.

Oh yeah, btw, when I lived in Bozeman nobody believed that I was from ND because I "sure didn't talk like the people in the movie Fargo!".