Increased cellular and broadband service clashes with the values and policies of the National Park Service, according to the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The group cites “policies to protect natural soundscapes, pristine vistas and serenity” among reasons to curb expansion of such technology in parks.
“National parks are under no legal obligation to provide visitors with commercial cell or broadband service – in fact, just the opposite when to do so requires sacrificing park values and resources,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a release. “In this the National Park Service’s centennial year, a conversation about the role technology should play inside nature’s cathedrals is long overdue.”
Last month, five U.S. representatives asked President Obama for a “significant” increase in federal funding for wireless telecommunications and broadband services in national parks, citing “goals of improving public safety, providing greater interpretive services and meeting the needs of the visiting public.”
More recently, on Feb. 11, Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota held an open house to gather comments on replacing a radio tower in the park's North Unit. As part of the proposal, Verizon Wireless would co-locate a telecommunications tower with the radio tower for “improved reception and data capabilities” in the service area. Project costs would be the responsibility of Verizon.
“The latest cell tower proposal in North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park illustrates how virtually every NPS precept on design, spillover and even public notice is violated,” PEER said in a release.
The park said in its notice that “having a functional and modern telecommunication tower on this site is essential for the park to maintain safe and efficient operations.” It noted that the new radio tower would be shorter (190 feet instead of 220 feet) than the previous one and thus would not require a flashing red light, improving night sky viewing. The park also said that this plan eliminates the need for a second telecommunications tower to be built in the area.
“Given the rate of development in the Bakken (oilfield), this is a rare opportunity to share resources and reduce cell tower proliferation in the region,” Bill Whitworth, the park’s chief of resource management, said in a release.
PEER submitted an eight-page response to park Superintendent Wendy Ross.
According to the PEER, such commercial platforms built inside national parks:
* Runs afoul of NPS policies and directives to preserve natural soundscapes and vistas and to promote qualities such as solitude that enable visitors to commune with nature;
* Would extend cell coverage into designated wilderness and backcountry. NPS officials are supposed to prevent this spillover but no park has asked a provider to limit coverage; and
* Cedes management decisions about virtually every aspect (placement, design and visual impact) of facilities inside of a park to a private company.
“National park superintendents have shown little ability or inclination to protect park resources and values from the demands of telecom companies,” Mr/ Ruch said. “The 4G arrays now being installed are designed to enable music downloads, streaming videos and online games – activities that prevent rather than promote communing with nature.”
PEER previously opposed a WiFi and cellphone plan at Yellowstone National Park.
Stories about:
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
I understand not wanting to put towers in the backcountry but I can't fathom the objection to adding wifi to buildings or even cell arrays to existing buildings and towers. What makes music downloads, streamng videos and online games any worse than mp3 players, video players and a deck of cards? Are we do ban those too because the neaderthals at PEER think they know better than anyone else how a park should be enjoyed?
As a Neaderthal, yes, I DO know better than you!
Once the backlog of maintenance NECESSITIES has been completed, I would have no objections to adding the capabilities to buildings in the common areas where the "towers" could be integrated & hidden. HOWEVER, I feel the already existing repairs should be accomplished FIRST, or negotiate the costs being paid by the carriers & NOT burden the underfunded NPS with yet more costs.
Every inch of a national park should be thought of as "the backcountry." That is how the railroads thought of them, but not the automobile, so yes, thousands of acres of our major national parks have been redesignated as "front country" by the National Park Service. Don't like the asphalt? Take a hike. There's plenty of "backcountry" at 10,000 feet that we've set aside just for you!
There is the problem that PEER has identified. You just cannot trust the National Park Service itself to put preservation ahead of development.
To be sure, this is further to explain where all of the superintendents writing their memoirs, etc., etc., keep coming up short. They forget how much they themselves caved to the argument that there is a front country and a backcountry, and many "countries" in between. What do you want? Pick a country, and say its development is necessary to your "enjoyment" of the park.
In the railroad age we traveled together; in the automobile age we are out for ourselves. The electronic age is just an extension of that, in which everything we do turns on a "front country" argument allowing our selfishness to prevail. The next stage is when society demands that we give up all privacy--and beauty--for our gadgets. That is what PEER is really worried about, as am I.
Agree Hardy, the carriers should bear the financial burden.
Alfred,
Are you saying its OK for the railroads to build "front country" but not autos?
No, I am saying that the front country the railroads built was still limited by public transportation. Case in point: Old Faithful Inn. Look at it now--surrounded by parking lots. Look at it then--free-standing in the midst of nature. Sure, it represented development, but nothing like the development we have today.
What would I do? What should we all do? Tear out every parking lot and go back to public transportation. What would that look like? Probably a lot like what we have in Zion. How would I pay for it? The same way they pay for theirs. Everyone pays on the room tax and at the entrance stations. But no one gets to call the best parts of the national park "front country" anymore. All of it should be treated as wilderness.
Radical? Let's go even farther out. You leave your car in Livingston, Bozeman, Cody, and West Yellowstone. Everything comes in on the tram. Too much junk? Too many tablets and cell phones? Make a decision. Make a choice. Do you want to see Yellowstone, or tweet to your friends?
There are solutions. We just don't want them. In the railroad age, we had no choice. When we built the front country to allow the automobile, yes, it was then the parks went straight to hell.
Alfred Runte, you make a good point. I was once on the campaign staff of gentleman running for the California State Senate. He wanted to me to take him to Yosemite on a summer day. Once in the park, we started talking about the issue of public transportation and he suggested a monorail from El Portal to Yosemite Valley. He lost his race after 16 years in the State assembly, the San Joaquin Valley Congressional delegation supported the local congressman who had made a deal to support the incumbent republican, in return for quid pro quid, the congressman's son would vie for the seat in the next election (the incumbent would be termed out). Politics is a ruthless business. In any case, I do have a reservation with your basic premise, a question really, why is it preferable to build a whole new transportation infrastructure, which will be obsolete in a few years anyway, either because of population growth, technology, etc., when a recognition that the capacity of the area has been reached on peak visitation days, consequently, you may need to have to wait a few hours or have a reservation. The fact is we are already doing this in some NPS areas already.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Nor am I offended by parking lots. Heading out tomorrow for Great Sand Dunes/Mesa Verde/Grand Canyon/Canyonlands/Arches. Be back next Sunday. Noway I could do that by train and no way my wife, granddaughter and dog would go if there weren't the current front country.amenities.
So basically one of those park travelers who goes from park to park, spends a few hours, and checks it off, but really doesn't experience it. Gotcha...
Why do you guys let this troll dictate conversation on this forum? It gets old quickly!
The National Parks conservation is so arbitrary and compromised that it really is a joke to even worry about cell towers destroying any pristine wilderness. The Parks are a dynamic environrment that is always changing in spite of the efforts to keep them static. The Parks are for the enjoyment American People, so let's ban all foreigners from the Parks and increase cell service.
About the acres and acres of parking lots at Old Faithful. (Nearly 100 acres of pavement and buildings)
Can anyone tell us for certain that all that hard surface is NOT having negative effects on groundwater infiltration that could cause irreverseable damage to the geysers in the basin?
No.
And here's the big catch -- we may not be able to actually see or measure any of those effects until it's too late to save the geysers.
But as with Global Warming, there are those who insist on hiding their eyes, plugging their ears, and insisting that there's no problem today, so there won't be one tomorrow.
Can anyone tell us it isn't having a positive effect? I have no desire to live my life based on not being able to prove that any action I take might have some negative effect.
From the Traveler archives:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/04/human-footprint-strangling-...
"Could" And they don't have a clue about whether those effects might be positive or negative.
there are those who insist on hiding their eyes, plugging their ears, and insisting that there's no problem today, so there won't be one tomorrow.
And there are those Chicken Littles that will constantly scream the "sky is falling" especially when it will give them the power to run others' lives.
Just came across this on Gizmag. Some of you might be interested in this device that allegedly allows internet connections without the connection. Good for backcountry is the claim. Maybe something like this could solve the NPS wired dilemma.
http://www.gizmag.com/beartooth-wireless/41854/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscr...
That device is a walkie talkie. It does voice and text to nearby users. It does not provide internet connections or the ability to call/text everyone.
Sorry Gary, with a six year old and a dog, there isn't much deep backcountry exploring that can be done. Spent a full day at Mesa Verde yesterday. My granddaughter complete her Jr Ranger badge and we visited all the sites that where open and viewed most the rest from afar. I think we "experienced" it as best could be done at this time of the year.
But then, I see you are part of the crowd that wants to dictate the "right" way to see the parks.