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.
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?
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.
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.
As a Neaderthal, yes, I DO know better than you!