The clock is ticking down to the National Park Service's centennial in 2016, and the focus of the PR campaign has been on attracting a new generation to the parks. But how far should the agency go in trying to lure millennials and a more diverse visitor?
At least one Park Service veteran wants to see the agency "regain the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt."
And that's the dilemma the Park Service and its New York City advertising agency face. Should they hot wire the National Park System for Wi-Fi so visitors can share their latest snapshot or selfie with their Instagram or Facebook friends and present more interpretive programs for digital delivery and send fewer rangers into the field to interact?
Or should the Park Service focus on why national parks exist in the first place: to preserve sublime settings and remind us of our poignant American history and rich cultures?
The other day a column popped into my inbox from the Traverse City Record-Eagle, a newspaper in Traverse City, Michigan, just outside Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. Written by a retired Park Service veteran of 40+ years in the system who uses the pseudonym "Max Old Bear," the point of the column seemed to be that the Park Service doesn't need to reinvent itself.
Now, Max's specific gripe in last Saturday's column was focused on a ribbon of asphalt the lakeshore has laid through a section of its forests to accommodate cyclists and hikers. Come winter, Max went on, the multi-use path is even groomed for skiers. ("The skiers even have the chutzpah to whine about snowshoe users on 'their' tractor-packed trail," he huffed.)
And where there first were cyclists and then skiers, the trail now is even used for races, he noted.
"The people were smart enough to set aside this land as a national treasure and entrust it to the stewardship of the National Park Service because the National Park Service had the trust, history and obligation of resource preservation," wrote Max. "I urge the Park Service to go back to its roots. At least, do no harm. Regain the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt."
In the months ahead, this sort of debate will surely surface again and again. How far should the Park Service go in trying to bring in younger generations and different racial audiences to the parks? Is the agency losing touch with the spirit of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt? Muir's legacy recently was called into question recently during a conference in California. As far as we know, no similar shrug of the shoulder has been given to President Roosevelt, arguably the greatest conservationist ever to have called the White House home.
But as the drive towards the centennial in 2016 grows, how much will the Park Service leadership give in in the guise of building a visitation base to succeed the Baby Boomers? How much should it?
What do you think?
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Instead of trying to put in cell towersto lure young folks back in the parks, perhaps the NPS should go back to the roots of NOT charging taxpayers to use the National Parks. When it costs as much to go to a theme park as visit a forest, you will lose relevance over time.
What a great idea. Let's have the Park Service go back to it's 1916 roots and 1916 fees. in 1916, the seasonal fee for cars in Glacier and Mesa Verde was $2.00 that would be about $40 today. Yellowstone was $10.00, about $200 in today's dollars.
Why should it be a choice between adding electronic means of interpretation and putting more rangers in the field?
Perhaps some concentration on educating visitors about WHY parks are so important and what has already been lost is also needed. Surely there is more than just a very narrow set of values that can be communicated to visitors.
Seriously, the only people perpetuating this nonsense is boomers that barely use technology. People still post photos to instagram and facebook without the need to be instantly wired-in. Millenials and gen-xers are using the parks. its not even an issue and is entirely overblown.
Boomers are the ones who hike in parks week after week, volunteer week after week, donate to parks and join Friends groups.
Boomers bring their children and grandchildren to parks. Children can only go to parks if adults are willing to take them.
We want to see and talk to rangers face to face, not on a screen.
Danny Bernstein www.hikertohiker.com
Think the historic and cultural roots of these Parks have it all over today's "virtual" approach as far as really connecting on a transformational level. The virtual is a distant, well, I don't know how far down the line it is. Some would say you have to be relevant, like leading tours of the Park dumps to see the bears?
There is no shortage of people of all ages (and all walks of life) posting photos from the National Parks on facebook, instagram, and using twitter. I know for a fact through social media statistics, that boomers (55 and older) only make up around a 1/5th of the social media traffic on one of the smokies social media pages. The younger generations comprise most of the traffic, and a lot of likes, and shares are from people of all ages, not just baby boomers. On popular trails in a majority of our bigger National Parks, one can find people of all ages hiking them. Almost every shelter or campsite i've been at this year had teens, college aged kids, and younger people camped out enjoying the backcountry, and that's from not only trekking in the Smokies, but in 4 other National parks. I almost always spot a diverse group in almost all of the parks. In a few parks, like Bryce Canyon and Arches, i've had experiences where I didn't even feel like I was in my own country.
Most boomers gave up backpacking a long time ago, but on the AT, Pacific Crest trail, etc there's no shortage of youth seeking out and using the trails. In fact, now the "fear" is that movies like "Wild" and "A Walk in the Woods" are going to create a "youth boom" on these trails as these films popularize them. Ohh gosh forbid!! I don't get where this "only boomers" use the park mentality derives from, and it drives a lot of us nuts when this is stated constantly. It's like the rest of us don't matter. There was an article recently written here from a millenial that lived in Montana trying to dispell this myth, and I agreed with almost all I saw in her article... I get that the retirees have more time, but back in the 1970s and 80s, was it that vastly different when the WW2 generation had time on their hands to travel, while the boomers worked full time? I'm sure back then, the same could have been stated about the WW2 generation and that the boomer generation was neglecting the parks, and that if something didn't change, all would fall by the wayside and the National Parks would cease to exist. I'm willing to bet that if anyone took a camera along popular trails like Half Dome in Yosemite, Chimneys in the Smokies, Bright Angel in the GC, and Angels Landing in Zion that one would find that baby boomers are outnumbered by at least 3 to 1 on these trails (and in some cases more). In fact, they might be suprised to find how many "millenials" and "gen xers" are in the park.
I follow a lot of the facebook, and instagram feeds from the NPS, and there seems to be no shortage of people posting pictures from their recent excursions. People don't need to be instantly wired to still use these services along the way during a vacation. In fact, many post to them a few days after their trip, and it seems to still generate likes and engagement.
Social media is changing the landscape too. Back in the 80s and 90s the best chance to find up to date information on a park was by calling the parks visitor center. Today, just by having millions of people reached by a single post on facebook, twitter or instagram, anyone instantly knows what is occuring in the parks. Whether it's saguaros in bloom in arizona, leafs at peak in the appalachian mountains, or if the Grand Tetons is recieving a 4 foot snow storm. It's only been about 3 years that many of the major parks have been using social media too. But, now their posts reach out to millions (and site traffic continues to grow upward daily), and baby boomers are just a % of those millions. Social media is educating end exposing the parks to a large and diverse group of people that could never have been achieved decades ago.
Gary, I am inclined to agree with your post. Your experience mirrors my own in my emergency hire FIO position. In iconic parks like Yosemite, the real issue is the demand exceeds the facilities available during the peak visitor season, particularly in Yosemite Valley, but also Glacier Point and Tuolumne Meadows. There is no shortage of demand by some demographic groups as well as visitors from other countries. Also costs for young people and some demographic groups is a factor. I do think opportunities for environmental education in our schools is an issue, many visitors that come are uneducated to some of the ecological concerns park employees face (as well as the nation generally), but that is another issue.
I'm wondering if this is REALLY a valid issue or not?
Ask yourself Lee.. When you are out in the wilds of Salt Lake, is there any shortage of youths that are not recreating in the backcountry of the wasatch! Heck, the olympics sure did spur that "youth movement" and brought in quite a bit of ski resort traffic.
Here is another article about how a movie is causing people to think "hey, let's go hike the PCT!"
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/dec/08/wild-film-spurs-new-interest-p...
Social media and cyber technology is certainly an issue that needs serious consideration. However, in terms of actual negative impact on our parks, intensive recreational and commercial development is a much bigger threat. Max Old Bear is sounding the alarm about a blacktop bike "trail" that is as wide as a country road, which Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is slashing through intact forests. This is bad news for that park and for a disturbing trend in national park management direction.
Mountain bikers have created a powerful lobbying organization that is pressuring the National Park Service to greatly expand bike trails in our parks. A good example of the potential damage this can do to wildlands is the public land riders on the recent defense act. These riders included boundary changes in an existing New Mexico wilderness area and the downgrading of potential new wilderness areas in Montana to much weaker "special areas," to allow for expanded mountain bike trails that would not be allowed in wilderness.
There are other serious threats to our parks and public lands from an array of industrial recreation and commercial interests. This includes efforts to expand off-road motorized vehicle access, predator hunting, drone use, and privatization of recreation facilities. The National Park Service needs to re-commit itself to its founding principles, and not be swayed by special interests that are willing to undermine these principles for their own benefit. Otherwise, the agency is on a slippery slope that will take it farther and farther away from the mandate of the 1916 Organic Act to keep our parks "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Exactly, Gary, and that is why I asked the question above. Ron and Michael Kellett expand on that. The lack of environmental education for young people is a threat, however. Perhaps that is an area where electronic media might play an important role.
Thanks, I also agree with your statement that trying to manage and educate visitors in high use areas is a daunting task. Thats an ongoing challenge, and I think social media can play a roll in doing that, especially if people are on a twitter/facebook feed and they do read the posts put out by the NPS.
This year, many parks have had either record visititation or near record visitation, so I don't think there is some dangerous sink about to occur. In fact, I think if gas prices remain low, its going to cause a considerable uptick in visitation.. Like, many here, i'm more concerned that the parks remain protected and that many of the interests that Michael stated in his post are kept at bay. I also dont want to see the parks dropping fiberoptic lines through wild areas and key corridors so that visitors can feel like they are in the hilton. Nor do I want to see cell towers on mountaintops and ridglines.. I really think people should go to National Parks to have a more low key experience, and the hope is that these wild parts on the Earth remain that way a few hundred years from now. These areas shouldn't be "urbanized" in an attempt to appease just a certain % of people in a single generation. Whose to say the generation after them might want to disconnect more than their forefathers generations. Regardless, many kids are wowed with nature if they are exposed to it. I've seen many of kids capture their first salamander, or see a wild black bear and the only way I can term it is that it's an "etheral experience" for them.The NPS is concerned about the New Generation of rapidly growing Hispanics that will be the majority in the USA and they do not visit or care about the National Parks. The NPS is reaching out to them. The White New Generation is of little concern as the White New Generation is going to be the minority and maybe extinct.. For example, Jackson, Wyoming is 30% Hispanic and only 9% of them have visited Grand Teton National Park. The NPS needs to change that if the Parks will survive as the US becomes a Hispanic country. White girls go hiking in the Parks instead of having babies; Hispanics girls work menial jobs and make babies White girls are not producing the New Generation; Hispanic girls are.
Wow. It only takes one or two people posting here to make me want to abandon this site.
There were some fine points made by many commenters but I still leave here with a bad taste in my mouth.
Wow is right. Sheer idiocy.
I'd like to get back to the point of the article -- is the Park Service losing its very founding purpose by catering to fads. In the case of the Sleeping Bear paved bike trail, this certainly appears to be true. This Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail is not a trail in the common understanding of the term but a superhighway for one user group -- those on wheels (bicyclists mainly, but also skaters, skateboarders, skate-skiers.) It is a 10 feet wide asphalt surface, with 5 or more feet of cleared shoulders, for a clearcut zone of 20 to 30 feet, and it goes (or will when it's finished) for 27 miles, from one end of the park to the other, through untouched forests, wetlands and fragile dune areas. This is causing unbelievable destruction to the environment that we thought would be protected forever by the NPS. Our confidence in the NPS as the protector of the environment is destroyed too. Sleeping Bear Naturally is a group formed in reaction to the paving of the forest. Our purpose is to encourage Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to adhere to its mission to preserve and protect the environment for future generations. Visit our website, www.sleepingbearnaturally.org, and our Facebook page for more information and to see before and after photos of the trail zone. Email us at [email protected].
Looks to me from the maps that this parallels or even uses existing roads for most of its length. Could you identify exactly where on the route this path does/will cross wetlands and fragile dunes?
And I wouldn't call, bicycling, skater, skateboarder, skate-skiing or nordic skiing, snow shoeing, walking and running "one user group" (the latter four which you left out) nor are they fads. Many have been enjoyed for decades and some for milenia.
BTW - why do you leave out "provide for the enjoyment" from your mission statement?
There is a BIG difference between Free Speech and Hate Speech. There are too many instances on all sides when the two are used without adequate thought. It's important to remember that our Democratic Republic was founded on the idea that fair and open discussion of issues would result in good outcomes. It's important to remember, too, that there is a ponderous pendulum that slowly swings back and forth as all members of this Democratic Republic seek to balance the differences between their opinions.
Political Correctness and its companion, Political INcorrectness are the polar extremes of the swings of that pendulum.
It is very easy --- too easy, in fact --- to speak or write without first applying responsible, reasoned thought. When that happens, everyone suffers and responsible moderation may be temporarily derailed. But given time and a fair chance to all sides, a reasonable middle ground should finally be achieved.
It just takes faith in our Constitution and system of laws and the fundamental goodness of most people of all kinds. Sometimes, though, FEAR prevents some of us from believing that it can work, so we try to protect ourselves by attacking others.
I wonder sometimes if the speed and ease of electronic media is not a very serious threat to the very foundations of our nation. Does it erode the thoughtful consideration necessary for democracy to work?
Thank you Lee, a thoughtful post, fear, harboring resentments are human, its hard to get past them sometimes.
"Hate Speech" is a PC term for speech you don't like. And I find it very ironic that you would invoke "faith in our Constitution and system of laws" when you fully support the total destruction of our Constitution and rail against those that make our laws.
Yup, Ron. And it usually doesn't take very long here for us to see perfect illustrations of what I was trying to say.
I find this topic fascinating, if only because I am a member of "generation X" which may be more appropriately called, "the forgotten generation." Sandwiched between the Baby Boomers and the Millenials, I can't help but giggle at the animosity that seems to arise between the two. Baby Boomers seem to have forgotten their push for change and their belief that progress would better the world. Millenials haven't learned that experience matters nor that they still have a lot to learn.
At any rate, there is enough room in the National Parks to satisfy everyone. In some respects, that is the job of the parks, yes? "...unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." So what if they enjoy it a little differently than you? Chances are, you enjoy it a little differently than your parents. Chances are, your parents parents had no chance to enjoy it at all.
The National Parks consist of "front country" and "back country." The front country consists of restaurants, lodges, gift stores, roads, paths, trails, and plenty of companies one can pay for various 'experiences.' The back country consists of nature, as natural as we have been able to leave it. What is the problem with adding a cell tower or two to the front country considering how unlike the back country it already is? Would anyone notice them? Probably not.
The idea that the Parks have to be either/or is ridiculous - they aren't in that state now. Add a cell tower or two "for the enjoyment of future generations;" some of us current generations would be enjoying them, too. Unimpaired doesn't mean unchanged.
Because the Front Country moves into the Back Country with such "stuff." NPS fights quite hard for buffer zones around the perimeters that could change the Parks themselves by proximity and actually taking over the natural design and purpose. I suggest they consider the cell towers and the incroaching "virtual" disconnect when they consider buffer zones.
Dahkota, the youthful Boomers should be granted the possibility of maturity, a short commodity, it seems. The other option is a form of arrested development.
Interesting post dahkota, I am inclined to agree, cell towers located in front country areas seem appropriate to me. On another issue, I thought I saw a comment that the concessionaire in the Grand Canyon who filed the litigation appears to have come to a short term contract extension with the NPS. The press release by the park stated this would be good for park visitors as well. I agree. However, I was disappointed that the NPS press release did not mention that the employees, both for the concessionaire and all others, would benefit also by this compromise agreement. The parks simply cannot function without the dedicated and competent employees of all park operations , it is important to recognize their contributions equally with the visitors and the park resources.
I'm also part of the "MTV Generation" and I do think as time rolls on, you'll see the transition from the baby boomers to gen x over the next few years as the boomers retire and gen xers and millenials become the prominent role players in politics, government, and the corporate world. Heck, the Smokies just hired a gen xer as their Superintendent.
Dahkota, my issue with cell towers is two fold. One they are only temporary. I don't see them serving a purpose beyond this generation because things are changing very fast. Second, cell towers are not always providing "safety" as everyone thinks. I don't want to see roads built up mountinsides in our national parks to put up cell towers. I like to see unblemished skylines in natural areas, and those natural skylines are a receeding commodity. This was a heated debate in one of the mountainous areas of Idaho a few years back when the USFS was planning a cell tower. The one side stated it was all about "safety", while the other side stated it was more about protecting the landscape and keeping it as unblemished as possible. The stats sort of show that when people are connected they tend to pay more attention to their phones vsx when they have no connection, they pay more attention to the roads. National Park roads can be very dangerous. Anyone that has driven over the passes in Yosemite, Glacier, and various points in Utah can attest to that.
Regardless, it won't be long till satellite technology overtakes everything. Heck, almost all cars today have voice command technology in them.
Which, other than the GPS data, is primarily cellular based. Once again you pontificate on a subject of which you appear to be clueless.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/onstar2.htm
If you want to read, in full, Max Old Bear's Forum piece that is quoted in Kurt Repanshek's article above, it is posted on the Sleeping Bear Naturally Facebook page.
Marilyn,Do you have those wetlands and fragile dunes locations?
EC, get a life. Seriously. Once again, I stated most things will be satellite based in the future. Obviously, like usual you pick and choose what you want to read. And yes, my wife and I own a car that has voice command recognition. It's not all cellular based. In fact, a cell phone is not needed, nor is a cell phone tower necessary. Freakin' derp.
Your speculation. You also stated:
"Heck, almost all cars today have voice command technology in them." as a follow up implying that it is based on satellite technology today. It isn't. If you knew anything about the technology, you would understand it will be a long time, if ever, that satellite will dominate cellular. If it ever does, the towers can always be taken down.
Whatever you want to believe, I could care less, EC. Now go find someone else to troll... loser. Satellite technology is quickly on the horizon. Obviously, i'm a lot more techonlogically savy then some washed up realtor. Now go away.
Once again, you are showing your ignorance. Perhaps you should do a little research on my career before becoming a realtor. I was a co-author of one of the first investment research reports ever written on the cellular industry (1983) and had a 30 year career researching and writing on communications technology.
EC, your background in communications is interesting. Yosemite Park did not even have radio system when I started, we did have some Korean War backpack type radio equipment and some line of site walkie talkies. Communications were interesting. If you were on horse patrol or on foot and an incident arose, you went to the nearest comfort station where a phone was located in a closet were the cleaning equipment was stored. As late as the middle 1960s, there were no radios for trail crews or wilderness rangers. If you came upon on incident, you loaded the victim on a mule and headed to the nearest trailhead. In any case it has really changed. Expectations of visitors, procedures for handling emergency situations, etc. Initially I was opposed to cell phone towers in developed areas, but in the last 7 years working on fire calls, more and more I think it is necessary.
Times have changed, when I started in Yosemite, visitation was roughly 500,000 a year (now 4 million plus). Tuolumne Meadows in 1960 had a visitation of less than 25,000, now it is 1 & 1/2 million. Roads have dramatically improved, as have cars, more visitors on buses, well, it is simply a different set of operational issues for the employees as well as the plugged in generation.
Yeah, and you sound like youre still stuck back in the 80s.
So Gary, tell us, what are your credentials on cellular and satellite technologies. You own an Iphone and a SPOT?
Before working where I do now, I worked for about a decade in the energy and communications industry. I know quite a bit about technology. You can quit with your smarmy attitude. You act like a typical NYer.
And that's why I prefer the wilderness. When you enter the wilderness, you should expect that you might be on your own and things could go wrong at any moment. That's why you have to be prepared to survive on your own and be able to handle a situation if it were to occur. A lot of people use technology more like a crutch. I once again, dont think we should be putting cell towers all through our national parks just for safety purposes. One of the reasons the Frank Church can feel like one of the most primitive experiences in America, is that there is no cell service anywhere. A cell phone is completely useless. A 2 way radio will give you some better odds. A spot device may buy you some time. A whistle will be your friend, if you are lucky to see anyone else. But, having some basic understanding of wilderness survival is what is key in those situations. And these are skills that I think people lack when they rely on technology to bail them out. A few years back, I remember it was nearing winter, and this guy and his teen aged kid decided to climb the tallest peak in the Sawtooths. Since they had a satellite phone, they felt invicible, and felt they could challenge the incoming weather, which anyone that lived in the area could tell you would be a hazard to all but the most insanely skilled and intune mountaineer.. Well, they got to the top of the 10,000 foot granite mountain, and a snowstorm hit with freezing rain and turned the granite into a sheet of ice. Since they had a satellite phone, and didn't have the right equipment for the terrain they now had to navigate through, they used their only tool they had to bail them out - their satellite phone. It took S&R about a day and a half to get to them, and they were stuck on a ledge nearing hypothermia. Point is, did the satellite phone give them an extra sense of security? Yes, most definitely. Would they have done it without the satellite phone? More than likely not. At any moment, they felt they could call S&R and get a bail out. This is the problem with technology too. It makes areas that would be out of the league for many feel more accessible. In a sense, it turns backcountry into frontcountry. Same sort of thing happened in the Smokies last year, when 3 wet behind the ears greenhorn thought they could pull off a 10 day excursion during a blizzard in the smokies while wearing cotton, and carrying a blowtorch for heat. BUT they had a single bar on their cell phone.
I'm with Gary W. on this one, at least what I call the Suit Of Armor Syndrome he describes well. I wish he could just state his point and drop the insults, though, I can see the advantages in urban or historic units, but please keep technology out of the wilder parks to the greatest extent possible.
Remember that improved 'safety' and 'convenience' cuts both ways. How long before all backpackers and (fill in the blank) are required to have transponders surgically implanted for tracking (think of the fee possibilites) and many poor rangers retire early on carpal tunnel disability from a career joysticking survellance drones from some windowless bunker? [satire emoticon]
FWIW It probably won't surprise anyone that I'm a pre-Boomer
That's been my thinking as well, Gary. For example, having GPS, even if I never turned it on, would give me a sense that I was not truly off the grid and in the "wilderness." As another GenExer weighing in, I'm not sure where that situates me vis-a-vis Boomers and Millenials. Like rmackie and dahkota, I find this to be a very interesting conversation.
In my early days as a medic I can remember making a traction splint with a tree branch and a bunch of cravats, and once I took the waist belts from half of a platoon to secure a fellow to a backboard. Nice to have the sense of confidence of those skills, but I'd really just as soon be cared for these days by more modern lifesaving tools.
I enjoy the woods but my enjoyment isn't enhanced any longer by the sense of daring of "well, shitfire, it's just me against the universe now". I like getting away from folks, not hearing engines or boom boxes but I also enjoy life enough that if I need to dial 911, I can reach 911.
In my youth I thought I was Superman and took whatever risks I had an impulse to take. Now I'm aware of my mortality and increasing fragility. I've dealt with years of processing my Kübler-Ross stages of losing my invincibility and am aware of my limitations.
There are kids out there who will race up Denali like a marathoner and folks much more sedentary than I. All of us of each extreme are the park's audience.
A cell tower doesn't have to be two hundred feet tall on top of a mountain. And, it is easy to keep the signal out of the back country. A distributed antenna system can be put in place using current front country buildings and telephone poles. This would provide service in the front country without marring the view or disturbing the back country. It is already being done in towns with poor service (Martha's Vineyard for example).
Yes, someday, we may all be using satellite phones. But why wait when there is an easy fix for today? Especially if that fix enables a greater number of people to enjoy the parks as they see fit?
I am not a fan of the front country. I avoid it as much as I can because the noise and ado get on my nerves. As far as I am concerned, it is disneyland. But, I understand its value. Not everyone can or wants to go into the back country. The parks are for everyone and so, there are parts that everyone can enjoy. Since it is easily possible to wire and connect the front country, without disturbing the back country, why not do it?
If you don't want cell service or GPS because you want to be "off the grid" leave your phone and Garmin at home. Cell towers in the back county? No, but there is little reason not to have towers in already developed areas which can give strong coverage in the front country and in many/most cases adequate coverage in the back country for those that do want access to service.
Oh, and Gary, if cellular is facing its imminent demise, perhaps you can explain why the industry's capital spending will exceed $200 billion this year. Are all those cellular execs just throwing away their shareholders' money?
I think that's where I come down on the issue as well, dahkota. My wife would feel more comfortable if I were to bring a GPS unit into the backcountry, but so far I've resisted having one--she seems to get my point above. But if new cell towers extend coverage into the backcountry, I suppose we'll need to have a conversation about my phone.
That's an enviable skillset, Rick.
Well, I think it's evident that even though genXers don't seem to matter, that a few of us between the millenials and the boomers like our wilderness quiet....as stated in the posts here.
Many of us genXers were inundated with technology since we came out of the womb. We grew up playing Atari in our spare time, taught the basics of compsci in highschool, and were basically the first real generation raised on computers and the internet. One of the reasons I like wilderness, is because it's one of the few places that the ambient noise from our technology can get drowned out, albeit temporarily before I return back to civilization. It's an addictive feeling, at least for me. It's looking like a few other gen xers feel similar... and I know from quite a few of my friends that are my age that they share similar thoughts.
Justin, I carry an InReach. I can turn it on, send an "I'm Okay" text, and turn it back off. I don't need cell signal and it doesn't ring, beep, or buzz, begging for attention. But, friends and family seem content with this. Mostly I keep it on, in the bottom of my pack, in case the crap hits the fan and I am unable to push the button. I never plan on using it for the reason I bought it - emergency help - but the best laid plans... Additionally, I believe a rescue would be much easier for any rescue party involved if they have my GPS coordinates; they won't have to wander around the back country searching for me and thereby potentially endanger their lives.
Personally, I think 'wilderness' is a state of mind more than a matter of location. But, if you regard the GPS and such as a tool, much like matches or a sleeping bag, it won't diminish your 'wilderness' experience nearly as much.
I'll check it out. Thanks, dahkota.
Things haven't changed much. Gary knows it all insults anybody who disagrees with him... As for satellite taking over everything, EC's right. Ain't going to happen anytime soon.
I see both sides, but I tend to prefer better cell coverage for safety purposes if we can do it in a way that does not impact the landscape. Since the backcountry is always empty anyway, technology will only impact those that want to use it. For the purists, they can always go in without a cell phone, or a GPS for that matter.
I don't know the specifics about that paved trail, but I remember a discussion a long time ago about creating a trail that parallels the main road to separate cyclists from car traffic. Is that the same thing?