Verizon Wireless Wants Cellphone Tower Near Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park

An 80-foot cellphone tower pales in size next to giant sequoias. NPS photo by Alex Picavet.

Can you hear me now?

Verizon Wireless wants an affirmative answer to that question if you're in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, and says it needs a cellphone tower possibly 80 feet tall in Kings Canyon to get it.

A short notice that ran in the Federal Register on April 1 says Verizon wants to locate the tower on Park Ridge near Grant Grove in Kings Canyon.

According to the notice, "Park Ridge is an established telecommunications site for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Current structures on Park Ridge include: two concrete block structures containing NPS and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) communications equipment with power generators; a 20-foot fire lookout tower; two 40-foot lattice towers with NPS and USFS telecommunications equipment; and a 30-foot tower on the NPS communications building supporting a passive reflector used for land-line service operated by Verizon California."

Of course, if Verizon receives approval to locate the tower there, and does indeed install one 80 feet tall, it would dwarf all those other facilities. Beyond that, though, is the question of whether there's a need or a desire for greater cellphone coverage in the two parks?

That, of course, is an aesthetic question as much a philosophical and even practical one. Ever since the world became "wired" it seems you can't leave home and get away from the rest of the world. Should you have cellphone coverage while hiking down a trail in a national park? Should you have to endure someone else yapping away on their phone in a national park setting?

Of course, it's nice to be reachable in an emergency or for business purposes. And where there's cellphone coverage, there's also some form of wireless Internet available as well.

But is this a safety issue, a commercial one, or one to better society in general? If it's a safety issue, how did society manage to survive all these years without cellphone coverage in the parks? And how would greater cell coverage in the parks better society?

Questions aside, it's now up to the staff at the two parks to evaluate the request under the "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and National Park Service requirements, policy and regulations. Once completed the NEPA analysis including the effects, if any, on cultural resources will be available for public review."

You can send any comments you'd like the parks to consider to: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, Planning and Compliance Office, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California 93271. Or you can email them to .


Bad idea. If I'm out camping or hiking in the woods, I'm trying to get away from that sort of thing. And I don't want my peaceful time away interrupted by the annoying sound of a cell phone ringing or someone yammering away on the phone.

Having lived in Grant Grove, I say build the tower already. Park employees live in 200 square foot cabins without telephones or access to the outside world. While tourists might be able to disconnect as a luxury, seasonal park residents are expected to go without Internet access and personal phone communication for 3 to 6 months. Seasonal park employees have to wait in line for hours for a solitary phone booth, walk a half mile to the VC, or, if they do have cellphones, drive a half an hour to get a signal. This is not a safe situation, especially in an area where black bears have broken into employee housing.

Supervisors at Grant Grove have told me that they're having difficulty attracting highly qualified younger candidates because of the lack of Internet and cell phone coverage.

Additionally, the article doesn't mention the Wilsonia Historic District, a private neighborhood of historic cabins just behind the seasonal housing area. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996 and includes 139 contributing structures. This small community would also benefit from the tower located on Park Ridge, especially in emergency situations.

And about that tower. I'm not sure 80 feet dwarfs 40 feet. Certainly doubles. But the tower would not be visible from any of the local sequoia groves or from most of the heavily forested area. A sequoia would triple (not sure if that counts as dwarfing, either) the height of the proposed tower.

And while it will be unpleasant to see people on their phones around the Grant Tree, it's already unpleasant enough with a huge parking lot, screaming kids, people crossing fences to climb trees, and the general cacophony a July day brings. If one really wants to get away from it all, he or she can turn of the phone and explore one of the dozens of primitive groves within a hour drive of the Grant Tree.

Safety issue? LMAO!
Just when did "they" decide that Our National Parks were not safe?

"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau’s dictum: in wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men." Aldo Leopold

I totally see Frank_C's point about seasonals. I've worked as a seasonal several times, and it's a terrible feeling when you're cut off without landline, cell, or Internet access. It's easy to become lonely and frustrated.

I'm not in favor of building oodles of cell towers, but we need to find a way to treat seasonals better. It's too easy for management to take them for granted.

Safety issue? LMAO!

Absolutely it's a safety issue, Random Walker.

There have been a few seasonals and volunteers at Grant Grove who are in their 60s and 70s. Imagine being in that situation and having some kind of health emergency, say a heart attack or a fall that results in a broken hip. Now imagine you're in a tiny cabin without a phone. No phone, no ambulance.

Bears are a safety issue, too. Imagine a bear tried to break into your cabin when you're in it. (This happened at Grant Grove, but fortunately when the resident was outside at a nearby campfire.) No phone, no help from law enforcement or wildlife biologists.

This area is also prone to fires. Now imagine that you live in Wilsonia and your chimney starts a wildfire. No phone, no fire fighters.

Grant Grove and Wilsonia are not wilderness. Not even close. The cell phone tower will go with many other towers in an already developed area.

So go ahead. Keep laughin' yer ass off. Many do not consider it humorous to be without help during an emergency.

Thank you, Frank C, for providing some essential background to this story. If Grant Grove is a telecommunications center, "a small community" and a visitor node possessing a "huge parking lot," a new cell tower and impacts from cell phone usage will be minor issues for park management. Been there and done that in similar situations at another jewel in the crown.

Keep in mind that new broadband and wireless technologies will render cell towers obsolete within five to ten years while SEKI will be there in perpetuity. Tower maintenance is a huge expense for the industry; they're eager to eliminate it. When that day arrives, the only delay will come from the NPS's desire and ability to buy the new technology. Seen that, too.

Verizon does not give a wit about your safety.
I do not have to imagine as I happen to live in a neighborhood where bears (and other critters) are very present.
If you fear for your safety, then by all means never ever venture outside of your cell phones range.
Make sure the contract stipulates that the corporation dismantle towers no longer in use, I found this out the hard way..

I'm very familiar with the Grant Grove area, having hiked every front-country trail and driven all the forest service roads within 15 miles. I'm familiar with the Park Ridge communications site, which sits on the boundary of the park having been up there many times. It sits almost right on the park boundary. There are several large clear-cut logged areas just east of it. Not only is the community of Wilsonia within range of the tower, but the large Hume Lake recreation area is also, as well as the Big Meadows area across a canyon to the east- which is a major recreational area with summer cabins to the south outside the park. If there was not already a big, ugly metal fire lookout tower at the site as well as existing antenaes I would be against this new tower. But the damage is done and there is a need. What I would like to see is a better effort at concentarting these towers in one small area, as opposed to the current habit of having one compaies tower on one hill and another's on the next. When you start hiking around the front country of King's Canyon and Sequoia National Parks you quickly discover there are antenaes all over the place. Many of them have been there for years. To see the location of the existing fire tower with Google Earth go to 36°43'29.03"N , 118°56'35.26"W . Then scan to the right past the park boundary to see the areas with small trees recovering from clear cut logging operations.

Well said Frank C. Sense and reason should trump all else.

Good Idea, cell phone coverage in National parks is necessary and needed in case of accidents or snake bites. If someone wishes to avoid people using cell phones, then simply go down another path, there is usually more than one path in the National Parks.

Jess Stryker makes a good point.

If a decision is made to allow a cell antenna in this area, it doesn't sound like it has to go on yet another tower - use what is already on-site. Unless there are technological barriers to different users sharing tower space, such sharing and/or use of existing structures should be a requirement for all such installations in parks.

Wow. Never thought I'd see so many people agreeing with Frank_C. Kinda surprising! :)

I dont understand...Verison doesn't give a damb a bout your safty.or the disruption it will cause,concrete truck's, heavy equipment, cranes,power supply, exc....all they realy want is to make more money...also,how will they get ride of it after it becomes just another pease of junk in the woods...will it cause another big mess.. ahhhh.. ya..

Well, I guess I'll put in my two cents in this discussion. There should be parts of the larger national parks and wilderness areas where cell phones do not work and the internet is unavailable. Remoteness and isolation have special value that is becoming increasingly difficult to experience. Our electronic umbilical cords that tie us to the rest of the world should be occasionally severed. Yes, I know. Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. Sorry, I disagree. There is a book, Mountains Without Handrails, that addresses this issue. Cell phones and internet connections are electronic forms of handrails. Let there continue to be places that remain inconvenient, potentially hazardous, remote and cut off from easy and immediate contact with civilization.

Wow. Never thought I'd see so many people agreeing with Frank_C. Kinda surprising!

It happens. :)

And for those who still think a cell phone conversation is going to change the "atmosphere" of Grant Grove check out the Google Street View of Grant Grove.

Pull up the parking lots, remove the lodge, dig up the sewage pipes, evict everyone from Wilsonia, tear up the roads and bridges and then, MAYBE, we can talk about cell phone towers. That's not going to happen, though. The area has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years.

That's all I have to say about that.

If young people are turning down jobs in this economy because of lack of cell phone service, they probably wouldn't be the best employees. I do agree that employees in parks need to be taken care of but I am tired of seeing so many people at work constantly talking and texting on cell phones. Also a cell phone does not guarantee your safety. Bears and other animals can attack you before you get your phone out-unless your talking on it the entire time. And in that case you don't need to be out in the woods anyways. Also, I can't believe your equating annoying adults on cell phones to kids who are excited to be in the woods making noise in the parking lot. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

As a 'young person', I take offense at that, because if you're giving a program, then it's awfully hard to talk on the phone while leading walk or talk, no? I've never turned down a job based solely on lack of cell service, but it's something that I consider when I know I won't be able to afford to pay through the nose for long distance in park housing.

It's not about needing to have phone service at work. It's about making sure seasonals who rely on the park for housing and utilities have at least one way to communicate with the outside world when they are off duty Not having an affordable landline, cell service, or Internet when you go home is like living in a cave. It is isolating and lonely.

People take these things for granted, especially when they've never been in the situation. Sure, there are some who are fine with this (eg - backcountry rangers), but for many, it is like falling off the face of the earth for three months a year when people can't reach you and you can't get to them. It's not fun, and the Park Service, as well as other agencies, needs to start treating seasonals and interns better. We are not your gophers, or 'just seasonals'. We are the future of the agency.

Not everyone feels that the sound of "excited" children is the music of heaven. In fact, I would much rather hear adults yammering on a phone than kids screaming. It's wise, when discussing use of nature, to realize not everyone shares the same tastes in outdoor experiences. In that spirit, I'll say this: While I can't stand being around kids, I've become a crusader for getting kids into nature ala Richard Louv and his "Nature Deficit Disorder" concept. With that in mind, I'm all about modernizing parts of natural treasures like our National Parks. Grant Grove is already city-like a lot of time. Ditto for Artists Point and Norris Basin in Yellowstone, Hurricane Ridge and the Hoh Rainforest in Olympic, any of the iconic viewpoints in Yosemite, the coast drive in Acadia, and any of the postcard locations in any other park. Why not get some cell phone coverage? It won't change the fact that you can walk an hour from any of those places and be completely immersed in wilderness - the kind of kid-less, phone-less wilderness I love. The front country tourist magnets are the baby steps that get kids (and adults) a taste of nature. Some of those people a few years later might decide it's time to see what lies beyond the parking lot.

Equating a desire to have technological communication with an inferior employee of the park system is painfully myopic. Is the desire to be able to call Dad and say hi on his birthday from the comfort of your cabin anathema to respect for nature? Is exposure to the wealth of knowledge and information available on the Internet somehow going to degrade the experience a ranger or seasonal employee offers to visitors? Wouldn't it be nice if some of the park folks could become email buddies with some young visitors from suburban Detroit and share pictures as the season progresses? It already happens and it already makes a difference. I can't imagine what logic would lead one to think potential natural history interpreters seeking locations with technological comforts would make them inferior employees. I could argue, though probably on equally unstable footing, the opposite. Technophobia and misanthropy are not generally qualities you look for in someone you want to spread the good word about nature...Ed Abbey notwithstanding. :-)

"Not having an affordable landline, cell service, or Internet when you go home is like living in a cave. It is isolating and lonely.'

Hmm, my wife and I lived "in a cave" for a total of about 20 years. Most of that time the nearest phone was at least 80 miles away. I honestly do not remember feeling isolated and lonely. We were so busy and wrapped up in our work that we usually felt there were not enough hours in the day to get everything done. Those were some of the happiest years of our lives. It is much easier to get to know yourself when you are cut off from the chatter and hectic pace of modern living. I understand that some people must have immediate access to family and friends, particularly when a loved one may be seriously ill. But please do not make it sound like suffering simply because the Internet is unavailable or the nearest phone is a few miles away. That is not a hardship - indeed it can be a blessing.

Key words: "My wife and I"

Not everyone is married, especially at my age. it's different, obviously, when you family is living there with you and you're not depending on a phone or the Internet to communicate.

Working / volunteering in Our National Parks is a job unlike many others.
I still have some great rambling letters from an old ranger friend.

I would like say, I had one the best time camping at dorst creek last nov.08 with my daughter's and one of there cousion,who is a girl also.These three grils thought they were going to DIE! without cell phone's. We get there on friday noon;went on a hike to muir grove and they were still trying to get a call out ,but to no avail the phone's did not work.YEA! it took one full day and then they stoped trying to make calls out.They had a good time without them for two more days,so much to do and see without cell phones in the BEAUTFUL MOUNTAINS.oh ya that's three teen age city girls. It was a good father /daughter trip.I would also like to say we say ranger's every where and often, that was great.

For safety, yes, for talking on the phone becuse you can't think of anything else to do? Sorry, that is your problem, young or not, cell phones are not a necessity. Going 1/2 a mile to the VC takes seconds to get there on a bike.

Going 1/2 a mile to the VC takes seconds to get there on a bike.

Unless you can't ride a bike because you're older or have a disability. And "seconds" to go a half mile? Uphill at 6500 feet in elevation? Maybe if you're Lance Armstrong.

And once you get there, a co-worker is already in the VC office talking on the only government phone not locked in a personal office. Outside, phone booth, German tourists are calling home and have been on the phone for 20 minutes. There's also a long line of obviously impatient people waiting for the phone. Hike half a mile back to seasonal housing where the same person is STILL on the one payphone. All this to try to pay a bill, make a medical appointment, call friends to make plans for a weekend get away.

"Can't think of something else to do"? Not everyone talks on the phone out of boredom. Some do it to actually communicate important information and for scheduling their busy lives.

It seems to me that there is an element of elitism in this discussion where some people want to impose their will on others. Who is anyone to tell another what's necessary in that individual's life? If you want to "get away from it all", DON'T GO TO GRANT GROVE. It's a city. Go, instead, to Evans Grove (or Redwood Mountain or Converse Basin or Kennedy Grove or Muir Grove or Boulder Creek Grove or Landslide Grove or any of the dozens of the undeveloped groves), and if you don't want to be bothered by your cell phone, turn it off or leave it in your car. I guarantee you won't be bothered by people on cell phones. Nor is it likely you'd be bothered by car alarms, screaming kids, barking dogs, traffic noise, sirens, loud speakers, construction noise. But please stop trying to tell other people what to do and how they should live their lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

"If you don't want to be bothered by your cell phone, turn it off or leave it in your car. I guarantee you won't be bothered by people on cell phones. Nor is it likely you'd be bothered by car alarms, screaming kids, barking dogs, traffic noise, sirens, loud speakers, construction noise. But please stop trying to tell other people what to do and how they should live their lives." Frank C.

Respectfully, Frank, this is an open forum where people are free to express their views on the issues related to national parks. No one is trying to tell you how to live your life. That is for you to decide. However, we all have a stake in whatever affects the parks, including Sequoia Kings Canyon. You may be more directly affected by how this particular issue is resolved, but we all have an ownership interest in the park.

Ray, you stated, "Our electronic umbilical cords that tie us to the rest of the world should be occasionally severed. Yes, I know. Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. Sorry, I disagree."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sure sounds like telling people how to live their lives.

As for this being an open forum where people are free to express their views, I see that you've only been commenting since January, so I'll let this one go.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sure sounds like telling people how to live their lives.

As for this being an open forum where people are free to express their views, I see that you've only been commenting since January, so I'll let this one go." Frank C

As I said, I disagree with your perspective. That doesn't mean that I do not respect it. Personally, I prefer that development within the parks be held to a minimum, particularly when it comes to non-essential convenience. The father who related his hike with his daughter and her friend said it best. Once beyond the reach of immediate electronic connection to the rest of the world they began to focus on the wonders and beauty of their natural surroundings. Yes, I hope that many others will have the same experience. You obviously have a different perspective. We disagree, but honest disagreement is the stuff of discussion.

Frank C:

You said:

As for this being an open forum where people are free to express their views, I
see that you've only been commenting since January, so I'll let this one go.

Where I come from, this is known as a "cheap shot."

Well, Bob, I consider being lectured on how this is an open forum while I'm constantly under scrutiny to watch my tone also to be a cheap shot. Where was the defense of the "open forum" a year ago?

"Personally, I prefer that development within the parks be held to a minimum, particularly when it comes to non-essential convenience."

I also agree that "development within the parks be held to a minimum." However, in Grant Grove, as I have stated, development has not been held to a minimum by any stretch of the imagination, and a cell phone tower that's a fraction the height of a red fir, a sugar pine, or a giant sequoia hardly seems intrusive. It would provide a valuable link to the outside world for the permanent and seasonal residents of Grant Grove and Wilsonia. People who are not residents may think they have a valid interest in telling these residents that they cannot use cell phones (that their "electronic umbilical cords that tie [them] to the rest of the world should be...severed", but I disagree.

Obviously, this post has struck more than a few nerves, and it's certainly good to see a wide array of viewpoints bubbling (exploding?) to the surface, although I'd appreciate a little restraint.

There seem to be two primary issues here:

1. Is the raising of a cellphone tower an ill-advised, and ill-needed, intrusion into a national park setting?

2. What benefits should those who live and work in a national park enjoy?

The first question, it seems, could turn into a Pandora's box, particularly when coupled with the second. I remember back in the 1980s when a wealthy Texan, impressed by the rangers at Yellowstone National Park, particularly those who live in the backcountry throughout the year, offered to buy and install satellite dishes for those backcountry ranger stations so they could have access to the outside world.

The offer was knocked down almost immediately.

Now, it's been a few years since I've been to Grant Grove, so I can't say I clearly remember the installations on Park Ridge where this proposed cell tower would go. I suppose you could say, "Well, what's one more ugly edifice amongst the rest." But where do you stop? Where do you draw the line between "there's already enough junk there, let's add one more", and "we have to stop making incursions into the park"? When Park Ridge becomes too crowded, where's the next location? If Verizon gets its tower, what about AT&T and other cellphone companies?

As for those who live and work in a national park, isn't that the choice they've made? Should society carry all its baggage everywhere it goes? Is it truly a safety issue? If so, how did we survive before the advent of cellphones? Is it a societal issue, in terms of chipping away at loneliness and keeping in touch with family? I'm not convinced. I can see it as a generational issue, as those who grew up with cellphone in hand while tapping away at their keyboards see those forms of communication as indispensable necessities.

All that said, these types of questions and issues are exactly why Sequoia officials have opened a public comment period. Take advantage of it.

Wow, Frank C. I don't think the length of time someone has posted anywhere really matters.

Can't anyone live anymore without being "connected"? If you can't enjoy the nature and solitude, perhaps you should just stay away.

Been there, done that. I've seen it from all sides. Having it there when the conversations were unwanted and not having it there when it would have been very useful and unobtrusive.

A couple of years ago I was backpacking in Yosemite. A Boy Scout group was next door and I woke up in the morning because one of the kids was talking on his cell phone with his folks. Granted I did call a friend from the top of Half Dome and Clouds Rest, but I placed myself far away from other people when I made those calls.

Now I do remember being in Grant Village a few days later and needing to meet someone there. Of course no cell phone coverage. If I didn't make the contact it would have been rather difficult to figure out what happened. Later I found myself at Stony Creek Lodge trying to make a reservation over their pay phone. That had to be the scratchiest land line phone I've ever used. I would have loved to have been able to use my cell phone.

Richard, re-read my previous comment and click on the link I provided about the defense of the open forum, read all the comments on that article, and my statement, which you're not interpreting correctly, might make more sense.

Anon, if you really think you can find solitude in Grant Grove, you haven't been there.

i'm headed back to grant grove in two weeks for work, and would be really disapointed if i have to listen to cell phones all summer. if you need your phone that bad, stay home and out of nature.

generally speaking, I agree that the current location is already a bit ugly with stuff. I dont like the 80 foot height - seems to be double anything else on the same site. But more importantly, why is it necessary to run this tower with propane during an era when we understand that burning fossil fuels generates CO2 emissions which cause global warming? Lots of companies are running remote facilities with photovoltaics. Is the problem here that the tower requires so much power than the land mass needed for photovoltaics is also large?

If that is the case, I would prefer no tower - not because of the aesthetics, but because of the polluting power source.

cell phones and towers are toxic, and dangerous, every time you do whatever you want, you are poisoning the earth and others. Yes it is legal, because unfortunatly corporations including the cell phone wireless industry run the country and decide the policies, but if you read between the lines you will soon find that electromagnetic radiation is creating illness and death and has effects that accumulate over time.

Anon, do you know something that that the rest of us do not? Can you cite any scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation associated with power lines, cell phone towers, or whatever is harmful to people? I'm genuinely curious. For about 25 years now I've been looking for a study that provides empirical evidence that this hypothesis holds water. So far, nothing.

I work in the wireless industry as a "site acquisition agent" (finding places to put antennas - tall buildings, water tanks, electric transmission lines, existing towers, etc.) and have mixed feelings. The industry, as far as I've seen over the last 10 yrs I've been in it, makes building a new tower the last option due to the cost and negative PR. I prefer to have "wild" places be just that. At the same time, the safety concerns sound valid. Tough call. I hope I get to this park soon though, it looks gorgeous.....

Mike, please comment on the art and science of creating cell phone base stations that blend into their surroundings. I mean, if the decision is made to locate a cell phone site in a particular place, can it be made darn near invisible? I believe that the cell phone industry would be much better served by a policy of creating sites that aren't so darn ugly.

The is not ugly and Frank can get a job at Starbuks if he wants to be connected. BTW- I lived there and it was not a problem for me.

That is, the lookout is NOT ugly! Bottom line is this is the camel's nose under the tent. What happens when Frank (or another wired seasonal) gets a job in Lake Clark, Wrangle, Glacier, (fill in your favorite remote park) and wants to call his girl friend or his mommy?

Excerpt from letter to the NPS re: SEKI cell phone tower:

I urge the National Park Service to deny the request for a new cell phone tower in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The Park Service is charged with maintaing the character of the national parks. That includes the both the tangible and intangible resources that make a park such as Sequoia and Kings Canyon a unique place. I understand the need to provide reasonable accommodations and visitor protection, but that does not require universal cell phone/internet access throughout the park. The park has contributed to the joy and wonder of countless visitors during its existence. Those who are privileged to walk among the towering trees and drink in the small sounds of the forests should not have their experience interrupted by the harsh ringing or obnoxious mechanical musak of a cell phone. Allow there to still be places where visitors may temporarily escape the electronic immediate ties to a mechanized world.

Ray Bane

Cell towers in parks are "the camel's nose under the tent"?

It's absolutely asinine to assert that THIS, a cell phone tower, will be the catalyst for a slippery slope to national park ruin.

Anonymous [edited] fails to realize that cell phone towers are the bottom, not the top, of the slippery slope.

Don't blame cell phones; blame roads, cars, buildings, sewage plants, garbage dumps, flush toilets, pay phones, parking lots, construction equipment, chainsaws, and every other piece of technology that impaired the parks to their current state.

A metal tower (next to a hideous, mass produced, soulless lookout tower) will not spell the parks' doom.

If you think Grant Grove is pristine, you've drunk too much of the special Kool-Aid. There is a sewage pipe buried amidst the Grant Tree's roots for Pete's sake.


What a beautiful place there. I have never been in Kings Canyon but I hope that one day I will go there. I think that this place should be peaceful and any mobile phones or other things should not disturb the people there. People go there to relax from their work so I think that it is a bad idea. But it is only my opinion. Thanks a lot for the interesting post and i will be waiting for other great ones from you.


Greg Peterson

If it's supposed to be "peaceful" then it's probably too late. It's right off the road and there are numerous businesses operating there. If you want something that really ruins the experience for me, try a group of Harley riders going down the road or getting off in a parking lot.

There are already pay phones in the area, but most people are more familiar with their cell phones. Again - I had someone to meet at Grant Grove once, and not having cell phone service made it difficult if something were to go wrong.