You are here

Cellphone Towers In Yellowstone National Park: A Flaw In The National Park Service Mission?

Share

When the National Park Service was created nearly a century ago, its mission seemed straightforward: to preserve the landscape for the enjoyment of today's and tomorrow's generations. As the agency nears its centennial, is there a need to recommit to that mission?

Those who believe so might point to ever-increasing fees across the National Park System, efforts to create deeper channels for boats at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and ongoing snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park.

But there also are groups that believe the Park Service should indeed re-examine its mission statement and focus a bit more on recreation in the parks and working with businesses that reflect an element of the human landscape in the parks, such as the oyster farm at Point Reyes National Seashore.

If you follow the writings and musings of Michael Frome, the man whom the late Gaylord Nelson said had no literary peer when it came to arguing for "a national ethic of environmental stewardship," you'll sense his belief that the Park Service needs to focus more on the environmental landscape of the park system.

That message was inherent in Mr. Frome's recent thoughts on the approval of a cellphone tower near Lake in Yellowstone.

Cellphone service originating from inside the boundaries of Yellowstone has been limited to the Mammoth, Old Faithful, Canyon, Tower-Roosevelt, and Grant developed areas. The Lake developed area is the one additional location in the park where park managers determined cellphone coverage could be added under the park’s 2008 Wireless Communications Services Plan Environmental Assessment and its associated Finding of No Significant Impact.

In July the park received permission to erect a tower near Lake. The new cellular site is to be located next to a buried water tank on a 100-foot rise above the Lake Administrative Area and 700 feet below the top of the Elephant Back Ridge. This site already has access via an existing service road and is near existing electric and phone lines. Antennas will be configured to minimize spillover coverage into Yellowstone’s backcountry.

In the September edition of his Portogram, Mr. Frome laments that decision.

"Changes made in response to comments were incorporated into a Finding of No Significant Impact. No significant impact — so the park administrators said. As they see it, the developed areas, with electric wires, phone lines, lots of automobiles, gas stations, hotels, commercial gift shops and sewage treatment, are 'sacrifice areas,' otherwise known as popcorn playgrounds or tourist ghettos," he writes.

"Before coming, you think of Yellowstone the way it is in the nature series on television. The Park Service tells you to unplug your ears and connect with nature — but when you arrive you can check your e-mail, the state of your stocks, and feel the conveniences of home," continues Mr. Frome. "Perhaps park administrators might have chosen not to allow those towers in the first place. They might have determined this was a strictly commercial service using public resources and public land, and that the signals the towers emit can spill into and pollute hiking trails away from developed areas.

"They might have decided that since hotels in the park get along without television, they can make it without wireless Internet service. When people come to Yellowstone, it’s one of the special times in their lives. They want to hear the splash of geysers and feel themselves in harmony with natural forces that over the centuries created the thermal features, peaks and canyons. That is what they come here for, and not having that sound drowned out by somebody conversing via cell phone."

As Mr. Frome goes on to argue against the cell tower, he says national parks "are presumed preserved to reflect the original America. Many National Park Service personnel want it that way. They care deeply, feeling their mission is to encourage us to embrace a lifestyle that treads lightly on the earth, and that doing so adds richness to all of our lives. They ought to be able to defend their park areas from overuse and misuse with a clear conscience. To deplete or degrade the visible physical resource does something to the invisible spirit of place as well."

To further drive home that point, Mr. Frome points to Zane Grey's 1925 book, The Vanishing American, in which "Nophaie most loved to be alone, out in the desert, 'listening to the real sounds of the open and to the whispering of his soul.”

"In short," Mr. Frome concludes in his column, "instead of treating a national park like any other place, the park professionals ought to say, 'If you can’t do without your cellphone or laptop or tablet, don’t come here!'”

Comments

The debate here offers another fine example of why the National Park Service cannot get a grip on its centennial. As a venerable agency, it knows what it is SUPPOSED to do; however, as a modern bureaucracy it consistently fails to achieve it. Robin Winks (and Michael Frome) are right. There was never a contradiction in the enabling act; "preservation" still precedes "enjoyment." Example. In an art museum, preservation of the art precedes our right to "enjoy" it in any way we want. I cannot touch the art; I can only look at it. In most cases, I cannot photograph it without permission nor is the use of flash allowed. Do those rules somehow "impair" my enjoyment? Only if I have come unprepared to enjoy the art. Every day, and in every way, people enter the national parks unprepared to enjoy them without the baggage of modern society.

Michael does not hate the human race; he just believes in simple rules. Make a choice; make a decision. Only in fiction can we "have it all."

Frankly, I don't care if there is a cell phone tower at Old Faithful; it just completes the picture of total abuse. Why not? There is a four-lane highway and a freeway-style interchange; the massive parking lot destroys every sense of solitude. What difference does the cell phone tower make? It already looks like Wal-Mart, so why not? Again, this is why the Park Service stumbles and bumbles on so many occasions, the centennial being just the latest example of tripping up. How can it celebrate an environment more reminiscent of Wal-Mart when its job is something else? And so it looks to its committees--and like the modern university--substitutes enabling for agency discipline. If we can just find the right cliche, perhaps the public will forgive us. Unfortunately, the end result of enabling is always to find the undisciplined public. The lowest common denominator of "enjoyment"--yes, use your flash bulbs! touch the art!--becomes the norm for all.

How in God's name did we ever survive without our cell phones, laptops, and ipads? Having been born before all of them were invented, I can assure you we survived just fine. In an emergency, we knew to put up a smoke signal or use our flashlights to signal SOS. Search and rescue always found us; somehow, idiot behavior does stand out. You know what will happen when we "make that call" from Lake, or Mammoth, or Old Faithful. "Hi, Mom! We are here! Yeah, Old Faithful is about to blow! Why I am shouting? Because everyone else is shouting. They're on their cell phones, too! Hey, let me get a picture for you! But wait. The ranger says it's still 30 minutes off. Who's got that kindda time? We have reservations waiting in West Yellowstone. Gotta come back tomorrow, Mom. Sorry, bye for now!"

You think I'm making it up? That is exactly the conversation I overheard in 2008. Again, bring on the cell phone towers. Why not?


Alfred Runte on September 21, 2013 - 12:36pm said;

"There was never a contradiction in the enabling act; "preservation" still precedes "enjoyment."

The Organic Act of 1916 uses the word "conserve", not preserve. At the time, and for many decades thereafter, Conservation and Preservation were 2 very well-defined, and competing visions of how stewardship should proceed.

Conserve meant to "touch"; to use, but to husband, renew and manage responsibly. Logging the forest is consistent with Conservation(ism), so long as it is done with sustainability in view. Preservation(ism) means to put the forest behind glass, and regulate flash bulbs.

Kurt mentions above, that Robin Wink explores the intent of the authors of the Organic Act. In using the word "conserve", and not the word "preserve", the intent of the Act is spelled out: We will touch the resource. It is crucial to know & be clear, just what "conserve" meant, at the beginning of the 20th C.

I know that many today confuse or are unaware of the difference between Conservationism and Preservationism. This is a problem, but it's really 'their problem'. But since Alfred Runte knows about smokes-signals, he probably knows about this distinction, and what it signifies.


Very interesting, Ted. In all these years and all the times I've read the act, the word "conserve" never jumped out at me. I guess I must have memorized it as "preserve" and so always read it that way.

Never too old to learn, I guess.


Oh yeah, Lee, there is quite the weird thing going with these words/names.

Today, people talking-up an environmental topic normally call whatever they espouse, "conservation", although in most cases it's straighforward "preservation". It's ok to use the root "preserve", after the subject has been labelled as conservation: "Polar bear conservation efforts have acted to preserve Arctic ecosystems".

Grizzly bear stocks are a correct example of conservation, because they are managed for use (hunts, etc). Polar bear management is actually a case of preservation, pure 'n simple: Look, but don't touch. And the Arctic ecosystem overall is managed to "conserve", not "preserve" it. Uh-huh.

A big part of this is just 'PR'. Polls tells environmentalists that the public does not react well to the word "preservation". So they conflate the negatively-receive preservation that they do, with the approved conservation, which they don't.

Another part of this language-weirdness, is that modern-day environmentalists themselves do not like conservation, on various levels & counts. So it 'works' for them, to hear standard preservation refered to as conservation. They take their opponent's name, and thus quasi-'disappear' them.

... Yet, true Conservation organizations are the 800 pound gorillas of environmentalism, today. Go figure. ;)


Okay. Enough with the hair-splitting. Here is what Webster's says: con.ser.va.tion 1: a careful preservation and protection of something; esp: planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect 2 the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions con.serve 1 to keep in a safe or sound state, esp to avoid wasteful or destructive use of (~ natural resources). the remaing meanings refer to canning fruits and berries, etc. pre.serve 1. to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction: PROTECT. The hair-splitting between conserve and preserve was directly due to Gifford Pinchot. He was looking for a way to get his hands on the national parks. We also call it the National Park Service because Gifford Pinchot (and Henry Graves) objected to the word Bureau. The National Parks Bureau should not sound more prestigious than the U.S. Forest Service (park advocates had wanted a bureau). The point remains: In the Organic Act, the ideal of protection precedes the ideal of public use. Call it conservation; call it preservation; call it whatever you want. The national parks (conservation) are not supposed to bend to "destructive use" or (preservation) be openly injured or harmed.

Can we honestly say that we have either "conserved" or "preserved" our national parks? In using them (allowed by both terms), have we always used them wisely? Have we enjoyed them without impairing them, or have we also turned the word impairment on its ear? Robin Winks was right. Our obligation to protect the parks imbues every method we choose to enjoy them. Now that we have chosen to enjoy them electronically, that may not impair the landscape. But it will diminish our fondness for the landscape by adding another distraction in a world that already has distraction enough. Every time we nibble at the parks to allow our self-indulgence, yes, we break faith with the Organic Act.


Alfred Runte -

Thank you. Well said!


[Alfred, before I reply here ... your book, Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness is misfile as Rustic Architecture 1916 - 1942, on the NPS History index page.]

While the dictionary is a valuable tool, it won't take one far as a history reference. The Environmental Movement, of which our National Parks are an important expression, does have an extensive history, and it does divide into competing Conservation and Preservation camps. For those who would like to take their command of the topic beyond Websters, the same NPS History index also contains a link to:

Selected Events in the Development of the American Conservation Movement, 1847-1920

The link is on the NPS History page, but this document is on the Library of Congress website. It contains many links to relevant sub-topics.

Conservation was the original idea, which the public got behind to ultimately enable the enactment of new laws creating Parks and other forms of protection. Some in the greater Environmental movement were not satisfied with continuing utilization/exploitation of resources, even when done responsibly, and they advocated for a "Look but don't touch" Preservation form of the movement. The public never bought into this well, and now activists have largely reverted to the Conservation name, while pushing for Preservation policies.


Excellent comment, Dr. Runte. Thank you.


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.