Talk:Ekalaka Hills

Re: Ekalaka Hills
The Long Pines are a separate island range from the Ekalaka Hills according to GNIS. They are not a sub range despite what they might be called locally. The Ekalaka Hills are in close proximity to Ekalaka, MT while the Long Pines are 20+ miles to the southeast and completely isolated from the Ekalaka Hills. The Short Pines are not listed in GNIS and indeed that might be a local name for the Ekalaka Hills. As such, the redirect of Long Pines to the Ekalaka Hills is inappropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed the Short Pines are not even in Montana, but in South Dakota in Harding County, South Dakota as confirmed by GNIS--Mike Cline (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no article on the Long Pines yet, so until there is, might as well share. But 20 miles near Ekalaka is spitting distance, they are virtually neighbors out there. (Carter County is larger than some entire states back east...)  There are a number of Montana "Island Ranges" that are clearly two different sets of bumps, but considered somewhat affiliated (probably due to being part of related geologic upthrusts or something) i.e. the Big Belts and the Little Belts, the Big Snowies and the Little Snowies, the Crazies and the Castle ranges, etc......and I'll grant you the possibility that the Ekalaka Hills get called the Short Pines locally, as I know I have seen the term in some guidebooks and some of the tourist sites I just surfed also use the term.  Basically, we are talking two island ranges that are the only significant relief between Miles City and the Black Hills!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)