Fortress Mountain Proposes Year-Round Resort in Kananaskis

What’s Happening? Fortress Mountain Resort in Kananaskis Country is planning a major redevelopment that would transform it into a year-round resort.

The Plan. The proposal outlines a new day lodge, hotel, spa, brewery, retail village, and expanded lift network that would open access to hundreds of new hectares of terrain. The resort’s 3,600-hectare Crown land lease already has approval for four-season use and a base-area village concept, but several key permits are still pending.

The All-Season Resorts Act. Introduced by the Alberta government in 2024, the All-Season Resorts Act is designed to fast-track tourism development in areas like Kananaskis, Crowsnest Pass, and David Thompson Country. It creates simplified approvals for resorts that operate year-round, aiming to boost tourism spending from $14.4 billion in 2024 to $25 billion by 2035. The province says the regulatory framework is still being finalized, and no land has yet been designated under the Act. 

The Debate. Critics, including Banff-Kananaskis MLA and wildlife biologist Sarah Elmeligi, told the RMO that the Act gives too much discretionary power to the minister overseeing tourism. She argues it could allow projects to bypass environmental impact assessments and Indigenous consultation. 

Why It Matters? If Fortress moves forward, it could become one of Alberta’s first major test cases under the All-Season Resorts Act, marking a shift from seasonal recreation to large-scale, year-round resort development in Kananaskis. Supporters say it could drive jobs and investment, while others worry it may set a precedent for resort development on protected public lands.

Locals Vote: Do You Support Fortress Mountain Becoming a Year-Round Resort?

Out of 452 responses, 57.96% of Bow Valley locals support a year-round resort at Fortress Mountain.

Community Comments

• I used to ski at Fortress back in the day and it’s such a beautiful spot.

• I believe a new, year-round resort in Kananaskis will respect the nature around it and any Indigenous history surrounding the land. That is what makes it an attractive place to visit. Everybody has a spa, but this has nature and solitude, a very attractive draw for Canadians and international tourists. It needs to honour and keep its natural environment. We choose to go to The Fairmont at Lake Louise and Banff Springs, The Rimrock and Emerald Lake for exactly those reasons, beauty, serenity and elegance. Not very often because the cost is quite high for a local, but they are full of tourists on a vacation who get to experience our beauty and wonderful for celebrating a special anniversary or birthday. I hope they build it, it’s a chance for those of us unable, for whatever reason, to hike in to have a chance to share in what is truly one of the world’s most beautiful places.

• It’s a slippery slope to more environmental degradation; also it’s prime grizzly habitat. Paving paradise.

• We skied in Fortress many years ago and loved it. We would love to be skiing there again. A four-season project would be awesome, would support all.

• It’s just going to bring more pressure to the area.

• Too much impact environmentally and in fragile wildlife corridors. Sets a precedent to fully develop K Country instead of leaving it as a natural area. The new act also gives too much discretionary power to the minister overseeing tourism. This would allow projects to bypass environmental impact assessments and Indigenous consultation. Leave our parks alone.

• There is already infrastructure and runs from the original ski hill which will need redeveloping but that is much more environmentally friendly than building a brand new resort on public lands.

• I was surprised that Alberta didn’t have four-season resorts as I grew up in BC and they have been around for decades. Alberta needs to catch up and expand on tourism areas. It always was the best place to ski in the winter and hike in summer. The feds and corrupt IOC killed it to build Nakiska. Looking forward to this development.

• There is already enough other year-round development in areas close by. Nature needs time to refresh and restore. This is one of those becoming all too rare areas.

• I believe it will relieve pressure on Banff and Lake Louise. We need more places to visit in Kananaskis.

• I thought about this for a while. I love Kananaskis because it is still wild and not developed as much. The beauty is in the roughness of the place. To get there it is a quiet drive in and as a senior I keep my body working so I can hike and get to places of great views and feel good about it and reset my mind. Also the place is not busy or commercialized. Some places need to be kept in the natural state. Just like Mt. Assiniboine area. One has to work at it to get there. It is appreciated more.

• The expansion will provide more jobs and allow more people to access the mountains.

• More people need to experience the area.

• It’s a beautiful area; would be fun to have more access.

• “It’s more profit over people and the environment. We don’t need another version of Canmore happening. Kananaskis still offers beautiful, natural spaces for both wildlife and people alike. The best version of a backcountry is one without a resort and spa trying to mimic what already exists.”

• A thorough environmental impact assessment must be completed first before any approval is given to this project.

• Can we not leave some wild spaces undeveloped. Our wildlife are living in a ghetto.

• Perfect place for it. Already was a resort decades ago. Time to see it back up and running.

• Take some traffic away from Canmore, Banff.

• Not totally set but it needs to be studied a lot and prioritize preservation and ecological integrity over business. And should be restricted to small independent companies that have no ties to other countries. All profits from such a resort have to stay with Alberta, eventually Canada. It would be great to add a clause that forces resorts approved under similar programs to pay their staff a living wage. Unfortunately our provincial government will never care about workers.

• It’s a wildlife sanctuary for a lot of animals especially bears.

• Magnificent area and would be a great economic driver.

• May lead to more traffic and people congestion year-round in park areas.

• Part of the infrastructure already exists. It provides options for locals and tourists and helps alleviate other overcrowded areas. Back in the Fortress days there wasn’t enough demand. Now with tourism and Calgary’s population much higher it could surely be successful as long as it’s well managed.

• Kananaskis is an important and vital wildlife area. Too often these areas are targeted as major money earners. When will this province respect the lands set aside for nature and all it encompasses. Priorities for development are short-sighted and greedy. We must protect the spaces already set aside for wildlife and nature.

• I wanted to see a mountain bike resort for summer riding so we don’t have to drive to BC for downhill mountain biking.

• As long as environmental studies are done and it’s built as eco-friendly as possible. Something new, not another traditional build that looks like Canmore threw up. Add a centre for sky and eco studies collaborating with the universities.

• Enough already.

• Another easy access resort. Yay.

• I dearly miss Fortress.

• There needs to be a valley-wide long-term plan for human use and movement that aligns with regenerative tourism.

• At this time of climate change and extreme weather incidents we need to focus on keeping what we have and finding ways to protect our precious biodiversity. A huge resort does neither of these while it fills the pockets of a few chosen with inside ties to approval processes and certain ministers’ ears. It also opens the door for corruption at the cost of our natural world. No.

• With water shortages and tourism over the top why do we have a fast-track system for further development. They talk out of both sides of their cheek.

• As long as a thorough comprehensive environmental impact study is conducted and it gives a thumbs up.

• We need to keep some wild spaces that are not available to people all year round.

• One hundred percent no based on the need for wildlife to have secure habitat. Wolverines are found in and around Fortress in the winter, and grizzlies use this area in the summer. Don’t humans have enough access to wildlife habitat already.

• Year-round jobs. Infrastructure is in place. It’s time to compete with the rest of the world.

• More options to the backcountry. Taking some pressure off Banff and Jasper national parks and Canmore.

• That is an excellent ski place. So if that is what it takes for it to fully reopen then they should allow it.

• We need additional major amenities to relieve pressure on the Canmore and surrounding area.

• Nakiska, Lake Louise and Sunshine are at capacity on weekends and holidays. We need another resort for Calgary folks. This will also reduce traffic on Highway 1 and into Banff.

• That type of development in K Country will ease the tourist pressure on Banff and Canmore. Expanding Banff isn’t possible and Canmore’s roads are not far behind on long weekends. Because of its location, development at Fortress offers the best and most sustainable solution. Increases with the number of tourists and in population are inevitable.

• We have enough resorts and we can practice a lot of different activities everywhere. We do not need another brewery or another spa. We need to keep our land as it is and to practice our activity with respect to the environment and to the Indigenous people.

• They could make housing for the staff, take away traffic from Canmore.

• With a growing population, we need more fun places for people to go and do. Bring back Fortress.

• It will help take the heat off Bow Valley ski hills and help people further south find jobs. This sets a dangerous precedent for future development. I’d love Fortress to reopen for winter though.

• Just do away with the Aboriginal consultation and get things done.

• But only with proper consultation and due process. This is a great option to divert people from other overcrowded areas in Kananaskis and Banff and Fortress offers great skiing and mountain recreation opportunities.

• The more options the better to spread out the crowds.

• Spent years working there. Has great potential to help alleviate the pressures on national park ski areas. We need to diversify our tourism base to take pressure off Canmore and Banff.

• Take pressure off Banff. Allow more people to enjoy the Kananaskis valley.

• The environment needs protection from human development. Wildlife need large protected areas.

• First off it barely gets enough snow most winters. There’s a small market for those ski conditions and people already go to Nakiska if they don’t want to commit to Banff. Second it’s in the Bow Valley which is already hammered from a wildlife perspective. Eastern Slopes land use plan, the Bow Valley study, why do these get ignored by the government. Also, that whole area would need wildfire risk reduction, so that’s taxpayer money being spent on protecting private infrastructure.

• This area is a wilderness protected area. There is a limit to these kinds of spaces which protect the wildlife and more-than-human world. If developed, they will be gone forever and abused by humans who, for the most part, do not respect the untouched world which is salve for the human spirit. I am against any development in this area.

• There are enough tourists to support the area as it is. As a Calgarian, our family has stopped going to the mountains which we did every weekend. Hiking trails are clogged, no seats in restaurants, no reservations in hotels. Ski hills full, no parking. This is our backyard, and we can’t get in.

• This would set a bad precedent to allow more development in critical environmental areas. Nakiska was controversial for its impact when it was approved for the 1988 Olympics. Let’s not compound it now.

• Comes with burdens on the transportation system and environment, but possibly justified to strengthen the economy.

• The shopping aspect of this proposal is ridiculous. The pressure this entire plan will put on the environment is not acceptable. Consumption, consumption, consumption.

• It would give some relief from pressure in Canmore and Banff and utilize an area that is already somewhat developed. With Kananaskis Village this could really become a world-class spot.

• This government is too reckless. We need to be very diligent with any development to ensure all aspects are considered.

• This is a natural area and should be left as such. If we commercialize it will become overrun like Canmore and Banff.

• Our protected lands are being sold off. Where and when will it end. Is money worth killing the draw Canada and Banff have for being natural resources and harbouring our wildlife. What will future generations think of this. Just stop selling out souls.

• I’d prefer to see Kananaskis stay natural. Keep the resorts and tourists in Banff. Highway 40 doesn’t need the traffic, and an increase would cause more wildlife deaths. There are always sheep on the road, people would get frustrated with the slowdowns.

• It would take pressure off people visiting Canmore and Banff.

• The impact on the wildlife will be devastating. Too many people already.

• Let’s keep nature natural. No more building.

• Politicians such as Todd Loewen do not care about wildlife and use any excuse to destroy animals and nature for financial reward.

• Jobs.

• The parks are flooded with people as it is. There is no room for wildlife anymore.

• No expansion back there. Let’s leave room for nature and wildlife.

• We need a year-round resort in the mountains to take the tourist pressure off Banff and Canmore. Calgarians need an accessible recreation area for day and weekend use year-round.

• Been there for years without major environmental damage, and there are some good slopes to grow on. Not sure we need another spa anywhere but accommodations could work.

• This new all-seasons resort act is scary. It puts tourism development above all else and can easily override park land designation. I suspect this Fortress expansion proposal could involve expanding into the provincial park land in an area important for grizzly bears and other wildlife. I do not support blatant disregard for protected lands.

• Why can’t we keep areas like Kananaskis as they are. I’m not against development per se, but what about the wildlife and keeping areas like this as natural as possible.

• It will create more problems for the wildlife if a year-round resort is developed. Do as little as possible to make it a viable ski resort again. We don’t need millions of visitors tramping through there. Keep space for the wild things.

• Mainly support this in order to get the winter skiing open again. Had so many great days there in the seventies through the nineties with our family. If it reopens I really hope it can maintain a more local feel rather than an expensive destination resort.

• Provided money paid to the province stays in K Country for park improvements.

• Lots of pressure on the Canmore, Banff, Lake Louise areas. Fortress development could take some of that pressure off, but only acceptable if done responsibly.

• Ski and golf resorts all over North America are already suffering financially. Fortress already has a history of financial failures. This proposal will become another taxpayer rescue project.

• There is so much tourism they need to build accommodation out there too, accommodation that is cheaper than Banff and Canmore and market this to tourists. Banff and Canmore accommodation is no longer affordable to Calgary residents.

• I’m too worried about the environmental impact of this.

• Why does everybody feel they have to attack Alberta.

• Canmore and Banff are overcrowded with tourists.

• Slash it, burn it, ski it.

• Kananaskis is already overwhelmed with current use. Don’t need new attractions.

• Great for the economy.

• The environmental impact would be too great. Wildlife is affected too much already by overdevelopment and population. We are at risk of changing the natural environment too much. When it is destroyed it cannot be reversed. It does not matter about employment or tourism dollars. We need as much natural space as possible. No.

• Kananaskis is for the more wealthy, hopefully this can be more budget friendly.

• That area is pristine wilderness and good habitat for a lot of animals that are sensitive to people. I would also be worried about the amount of traffic this would increase on the road, as this highway already experiences a lot of traffic and wildlife along the highway. It also opens up a quieter area of Kananaskis which is known for its remote beauty, and I fear we would lose that too by adding another Kananaskis Village.

• Don’t want more congestion in the area.

• The impact to wildlife, flora and fauna. Let these areas be wild.

• With restrictions as other resorts already have. The area is not used much now and it was a resort previously so new activity should not have a different impact than the original intent.

• It’s a beautiful mountain.

• Looking forward to skiing there.

• It’s already there, let’s start using that terrain again.

• A big boost for tourism and locals.

• Increased development is probably inevitable and this is a comparably less intrusive way to do it. It’s already a somewhat developed area, with the ski hill footprint and the nearby Pomeroy lodge and Kananaskis Village. It will delay pressure along the Smith-Dorrien. It will relieve pressure on and hopefully prices in Banff and Canmore.

• Too many exemptions from environmental protection regulations. If they were held to all environmental laws I’d be in favour of it as I feel CPAWS holds an overly strict view of development.

• The area has so much to offer and can be an alternative to going to overcrowded Banff and Lake Louise. Generates jobs too.

• We need to diversify our economy more away from oil and gas.

• With strong environmental controls.

• More information needed regarding the environmental impact, staffing ability, transportation infrastructure as well as other factors before blindly saying yes to it.

• We need more access for recreational activities, and ideally we need it spread out.

What Do You Think?

Let us know in the comments.