If a tower can be seen from the wilderness, is that a reason not to build it?

Eric Ringham April 15, 2011, 5:00 AM Apr 15, 2011

Wilderness advocates are suing to prevent construction of a cell phone tower visible from some places in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Today’s Question: If a tower can be seen from the wilderness, is that a reason not to build it?

About the blogger

Eric Ringham

eringham@mpr.org

Duane

This question is as illogical as the objections to Kennedy’s and other people from Mass, were making regarding wind generators that were to be placed off the coast, in the Atlantic visible to them. A tower in this area would provide security and accessibility to a wilderness area that should be enjoyed by the people of this country, not hidden from most people because of it should be kept ‘pristine’.

Wade

Hasn’t man ruined enough of this world? I enjoy loosing cell reception when I am at my cabin up on the BWCA border. The kids can’t be on them all weekend, the boss can’t reach me, etc.

If Duane and others want cell reception and other modern luxuries. I suggest they stay down in the cities and leave the woods for those of us who can appreciate them for what they provide.

Wade

Steve the Cynic

Who cares? No place in the world is pristine. The most remote lakes are poluted by mercury from burning coal. We’re altering the climate worldwide. GPS has removed the risk of getting lost, making a true wilderness experience practically impossible. And we’re worried about the visibility of cell phone towers? Your canoe, your tent and your campfire disrupt the wilderness more than that.

Wade

Apparently I care. Considering MN bought all that land from the mines up on Vermillion, obviously a lot of other Minnesotans care.

dum dum alouwishes

The reason there shouldn’t be a tower there is because it’s the wilderness.

It’s not the “wilderness” if there’s a freakin CELL PHONE tower??

It’d be called “outside”

Mary

It’s not the tower itself that would cause problems. It’s what it would bring with it. People go into the wilderness to escape the noise of city life, only to be subjected to someone in the next canoe yakking on their cell phone. The argument that it would be helpful in an emergency is valid, but how many people use their phones for emergencies only. The tempation would be too great for many people. Just because they can get a signal, they would have to be on the phone either talking or texting. In the first case they would be bothering others. In the second case why bother going if you aren’t enjoying the scenery.

Steve from up North

As one that lives around the area, I would welcome having cell reception around the Ely area. If you don’t want to be reached by cell phone, there’s a really easy way to take care of that…turn the thing off.

On top of that, the added security of having reception in the area would vastly increase safety. If there is an accident in the BWCA as it sits, it’s a losing race against time to travel out in order to reach help. In many situations the injured can’t easily be moved and it’s faster to have one or two people in the party race out to find help. Only to turn around again and bring that help back with them. If there was cell reception, it would cut out that whole first leg of that ordeal.

Aladdin Seine

I agree with Duane. I am concerned that people are trying to hide the boundary waters from me. The “light pollution” from the tower will act as a safety beacon for all visitors so they know which way civilization is. Who cares if that angers stargazers in the BWCA? Did you know the only way into the BWCA is by canoe or helicopter? This is ridiculously unsafe and inaccessible. We must build a superhighway into the BWCA so that we can enjoy it. Did you know you have to carry in your own food and carry out your garbage? Talk about inaccessible! Put a McDonalds inside it and turn a corner of it into a landfill. Also, we could probably cut drainage ditches so that there isn’t so much water. This could all be funded by hunting permits in another part of the BWCA. I’m sick of all the illogical idiots claiming that it should be kept ‘pristine.’

(end sarcasm)

Duane, you’ve got enough places to get your so-called “adventure” in Minnesota where you have your cell phone and eroding RV. Could you at least have the decency to leave the BWCA to those of us who really want to escape and have an adventure? Please?

Larry M.

The problems with the tower is it’s height and second it’s lit up because of it’s height. Light pollution should really be taken into account. When someone goes up north they will see 10 fold the stars they see in the city and sometimes Northern Lights it is part of the draw and to disrupt that with a tower is unfortunate. The other reason people go to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area is to forget about “civilization” for a while, how can that happen with a giant tower hanging over everyone’s head. Let alone the idea of people texting while paddling seems like a dangerous and annoying proposition.

With that said, I’d rather have a cell tower than a mine on the edge of the BWCA. Mine owners are infamous for having accidents and to risk the BWCA, all the tourism travel and the wild rice paddies would be a mistake.

Greg

Build four shorter but still uglly towers to service the folks that live up there all-year round and want/need better phone service. That should reduce tower visiblity in the BWCA, increase overall costs and reduce signal quality for anyone in the BWCA.. As for the secruity argument – HAH … its a wilderness .. not a suburban park. Plan appropriately and yes… expect the worst to acutally happen. If you don’t want to be exposed to accidental-danger … don’t go.

Curt

Why not have paved roads and motels in the BWCA too? How about an amusement park just in case you get tired of the wilderness? How could we live without cell phone and internet access everywhere we go? Is there NO place for solitude anymore?

If you need these things..stay home. Leave the wilderness for those that appreciate it, and the wild animals.

David E. S.

This is a perfect test case on environmental preservation. It is easier to build in the name of progress than to let well enough alone. There is probably no legal basis to stop the building since it is not on the land itself, so a law would have to be written to preserve the natural vista that is considered a part of the chain of lakes environment.

Drae

Is the tower being built to serve people who live in the area? If so, then too bad for “wilderness advocates.” The needs of the residents should come before the needs of visitors.

Philip

I agree with Wade. Quite screwing up what’s left of our wilderness. If you want modern conveniences, then move to an urban area.

Amber Ellering

Yes. It is a good reason not to build it. Wilderness is important for human psychology, culture, and scientific knowledge, as well as ecology. A tower in close enough proximity to be viewed from the wilderness is clearly in contradiction to the concept of wilderness. The following is from the Wilderness Act of 1964:

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Zach Johns

Keep it away. I curse jets every time I see one cross the sky in the BWCA – I definately don’t wanna see a stupid cell phone tower! …or get cell reception! Getting lost on this planet is a privlege – we need places that are REAL. I love that little spot on the way to work where I lose cell servive on my little 6 mile commute between Hibbing and Chisholm. That little dead space gives me hope!

T A

Where ever there are people, “wilderness” is not. Although I don’t believe in the religion of Evolution, humans are the only “species” that are not in harmony with their nature. Humans are the only “species” that spoil and pollute their environment, the only “species” who’s population is greater than what it’s resources can sustain, the only “species” with the capability to hunt “another” animal species to extinction.

The BWCA is not a wilderness, it’s just one big state park. It’s regulated, permitted and managed like a state park. You can only gain access at certain entry points, you must make a reservation and pay a fee. You must furnish names/addresses of all members of your party. You can only camp at designated campsites. Under certain conditions, you must have a permit to burn a campfire.

And this is called wilderness?? Sounds more like boarding an airplane. I say build the cell tower. If the BWCA really was a true wilderness, then I would say no to the tower. Because if the BWCA was a wilderness, there wouldn’t be any people in there to need a tower in the first place.

Duane

It bothers me that sarcasm is allowed on this blog to express an opinion, see Aladdin Seine. A well thought out position properly expressed is much more effective. I was preparing for my second trip into the BWCA when a heart attack prevented it. I have never been able to go back since. Accessibility should be available to anyone.

Jason Andersen

Do NOT build it! The appeal of BWCA is un-civilized and non-tech. I love my cell phone and internet when I am in the city but we NEED a place to go to “get away from it all”!

Rhonda

No Tower! it’s great that no ones cell phone works in the BWCA! I don’t want to hear all the different ring tones or even deal with my cell phone when I’m on vacation!

Nathan

Wow MPR

where do you stand?

You are worried about cell phone towers in the BWCA but you are playing plugs for the mining companies on the air today. Visit http://www.preciouswaters.org
rob

yes, the tower should not be built
Bryan Hansel

Aldo Leopold, in a Sand County Almanac, tells us that the value in a wilderness experience is directly proportional to the experience’s intensity, and “to the degree to which it differs from and contrasts with workaday life.” The more we allow the “workaday life,” in this case a cell tower, to intrude into the wilderness, the less valuable the experience becomes. Because these experiences are so fleeting in our lives — one week a year for most visitors — we must preserve the contrast for ourselves and future generations to give them as powerful as an experience as we had.

In the above threads, I’ve seen the argument that because people use GPS units, a technology which reduces the wilderness experience — and I’d argue the courage required to take a trip — adding extra technology and visible technology is okay. Or because you can see plane, therefore a tower is okay. Or because humans enter the wilderness, therefore it’s not wilderness. These arguments fail, because wilderness isn’t an all or nothing experience. It’s easy to continually chip away at the wilderness by adding GPS units, campsites, cell phones, cell towers, hotels, motor boats, etc. Each of these things reduce the value of the overall wilderness experience and the contrast with our “workaday life.” These things take away value in such a fleeting experience.

Because the goal of the Wilderness Act and the BWCA is to preserve the area as a primitive wilderness experience, it starts to fail its goal the more items from our “workaday life” we introduce. As Americans, we set that goal, and it’s a shame to see us fail ourselves by not meeting our goals. I’d say keep the BWCA experience the same and move the cell tower elsewhere.
kmkjake

Yes! Dear God, Yes!
kmkjake

Yes! Please do not ruin any more scenic/wilderness views! Check out views of Palisade Head before and after the tower.
Kirk

DO NOT BUILD!

Can’t we even leave a shred of wilderness entact without it being visually impacted by our insane worship of technology?

At what point will a hole in the ground be the only place left to not see the impact of mankind?
Elanne

Actually, I think the cell tower is illegal. Federal law protects the

Second, this is not a safety issue. Verizon towers already cover a portion of the wilderness. This is about AT&T building a higher tower in order to dominate the market.

Third, satellite phones are also available for use in the wilderness. The problem is that, if you are far enough back into the BWCAW, it would take awhile for help to get there. That is why safety is based upon campers being knowledgable and prepared when planning a wilderness trip–into any wilderness, for that matter.

Fourth is the problem of bird kill, especially in area of waters and wetlands. Towers that require lights, by virtue of their height, attract night migrating birds. Thousands within a flock can get tangled and killed in the guy lines.

Fifth, the building of any tower requires some kind of road access, and periodic use of herbicides to maintain that access.

Sixth, as consumers we fall for company propaganda rather than considering the total impacts of what we do,
Lena K. Gardner

If a tower can be seen from the wilderness, it is a reason to abstain from building it. I would like AT&T to consider more closely the alternatives of a smaller tower or two towers that would provide the same coverage and not impinge on the visual experience of wilderness. It is a compromise that would be reasonable and accommodate multiple needs. (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/04/10/bwca-cell-phone-tower-lawsuit-heads-to-trial/)

Thank you Amber Ellering for a useful definition of wilderness. As a former guide in the Boundary Waters, I value my trail experiences as life affirming and transformational. And furthermore, there is something to be said about learning to rely on yourself with real risk involved. Those risks can be managed and mitigated with training, planning, and preparation and at the same time provide invaluable experience. The Boundary Waters is the most visited and most popular wilderness in the country, the reason is because it maintains a certain experience that we will dramatically change and sacrifice if the tower goes up.
Molly

No, the tower (which is to be built outside the BWCA) should be allowed if the lives of those who live in the area are endangered by not having a tower. From what I have read and from what I have discussed with those in the area, cell phone reception is necessary for the safety of those living on certain outskirts of the BWCA. It is also needed by some of the local small business owners who are trying to eke out a living. If you want to go to a place where you won’t see a tower or hear a cell phone, there are many parts of the BWCA where that is available. Try going to a place like Lake Agnes. For the individual who travels five miles into the BWCA, she or he may have to compromise her or his experience a bit. I have been in many parts of northern Minnesota not in the BWCA where I neither see a tower nor get reception. If a person makes an effort there are many such places available. If we as a society do find the sight of towers offensive, then, I recommend that we require the same regulation statewide. Perhaps, no tower should be any taller than a designated height. Divisions between groups can quickly become vitriolic when the laws for me don’t apply to you. We quickly become a aristocracy when what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
james Moore

Wrong question. If you can see a tower are you even in the wilderness?
herb davis

There are other alternatives and the protection from things that interfere with a wilderness expereince should be avoided at all costs.

WILDERNESS….not every new convenience that comes along!
John

Please no cell tower. Many good points on here about whether the BWCA is truly a wilderness or not… but why make it less remote? No good reason that I can see. When you go to the BWCA it’s not about having a safe environment for family frolicking. There are plenty of places for that. The BWCA is about something else and the more that we can preserve that experience, the better.
Jack Goldman

Tree huggers and motor huggers are utterly incompatible. Trouble is people want it both ways. Would Ely people want to live there if it was like Minneapolis/St. Paul? No.

I want it both ways too. I just don’t know how to get that. I am against the unlimited proliferation of capitalism and businesses. There hasn’t been a tower there for 10,000 years. Let’s keep it that way.
Linda

Are you kidding me? You can’t control who calls you and when? ! There is an ‘off’ mode on every cell phone I’ve ever seen. Just as I don’t allow the driver in the car on my rear bumper to intimidate me into driving faster, I don’t answer calls that I do not want to answer. Control your life and try to not control mine just because I am not able to go experience the BWCA because there is no reliable cell service available. I have health problems that could take my life IF I were to have a medical issue. and could not contact anyone for help. Setting that aside…I do not think that we should be trying to govern what goes on outside of the BWCA. The line was drawn. Let’s not allow ‘creep’ into the areas outside of the BWCA…even if it’s only 6 inches outside of the protected area. Please give me the opportunity to enjoy YOUR BWCA also. I’m for the cell tower. Thanks!
Vince

For something this simple, wouldn’t it be nice if problem-solving could replace ideology? Many cell towers in Europe look like trees. Build it, camouflage it, and everyone can be satisfied: Purists won’t see it and public safety is enhanced. The argument that people shouldn’t carry technology in the wilderness is a bogus side issue meant to provide cover for those who can’t see compromise. It seems to me we’ve had plenty enough of that behavior in this country of late.
Wade

The locals have and have had land lines. Land lines have 911 capability, so this is a luxury not a necessity for the locals up there. They chose to live up there to be away from the hustle and bustle of big city life. If they want all the amenities of a more modern life, they can move to a more modern area.

Also to the unhealthy people who need cell phones for emergency service. Get a Satellite phone or stay home. The BWCA is not a place for the unhealthy regardless of cell coverage.

Entering the BWCA and heading deep into the bush takes a well prepared person with proper planning for ALL possible situations AND the ability to deal with those situations.

The sick and handicapped will just have to live with more accessible parks with more modern conveniences.
Jason

I especially like the points from Mary, Curt, and Linda.

If it is only a matter of convenience or novelty then I would say to not have it built.

Sounds carry incredibly far in these areas. In the BWCA I can hear and understand conversations from people on other islands 1/4 mile away.

People using cell phones tend to talk more loudly than normal. The last thing I want to see or hear is another person babbling into their little amusement box when they should be doing what they came to do – enjoying the pristine peace and quiet.
Neil

I had a dream once that a favorite island in the Voyageurs National Park was turned into an amusement park, complete with fast food outlets. For all the indecipherable meanings behind most dreams this one was pretty literal in expressing my subconscious concerns.

If it is a legal matter in what constitutes a “wilderness” then I leave the decision up to the court. Otherwise I personally would not want to see it built.
Ben

No.

If me or Mine gets hurt or lost, I want Help ASAP.

Not in a few hours or DAYS.

I’d rather see a cell tower than a grave of a friend ANY Day.

Besides they make cell towers that look like trees and rocks anyway now.

–Ben
Steve the Cynic

The whole idea of wilderness is a myth. There is no place on earth that has not been affected by human activity. That was true even before the industrial revolution. On this continent, for instance, wooly mammoths were hunted to extinction over 10,000 years ago. Furthermore, the idea that human activity is “unnatural,” or that areas “untrammeled by man” have some sacred value, is pure ideology, not based in rational fact.

Contrary to an earlier assertion (and the apparent assumption of several writers here), humans are not the only critters that “damage” the ecosystem to the detriment of other species. Every invasive species does that, and humans are not the sole cause of species invasions. We may damage the ecosystem more effectively than others, but we’re not unique in that regard. Sure, it’s good to reserve some areas to be kept relatively free from human meddling, but the standard for our stewarship of the environment should be the sustainable use of a healthy ecosystem. Let’s keep things in perspective: a cell phone tower visible from the BWCA is insignificant compared to the massive unsustainability of things like industrial-scale agrigulture, deforestation, depletion of fisheries, and our greenhouse gas emissions.
Margaret, 67-yr old canoer

The “safety” argument re the visitors to the BWCA sound pretty suspicious. (After all, SAT phones are available for short-term use–and probably less susceptible to temptations of random chitchat calls or texting…)

If you’re going into a wilderness area, it means that you choose to take risks you wouldn’t take in a county park (where you can also text to your heart’s content…)

If the needs of the local residents can be met with a few shorter towers, it should be done that way. There are already plenty of compromises in the wonderful “wilderness” BWCA…flashing lights should not be another.
Kevin VC

The Boundary Waters area?

Hell yeah, that should not have any construction in the area. And there are enough cell phone towers.

Personally some areas need Cell phone jammers.

Like Movie Theaters, and along highways…. And I would NOT be against putting Jamming towers in the boundary waters area.

These towers are not only eye sores, but really we have enough electronic noise as it is.
Theresa

NO TOWER!!! I agree with Rhonda and Jason, When We go to the Boundary Waters and surrounding areas I love the fact that we don’t get any cell phone reception. we can go and not even think about a phone. The local people have a great relationship with one another, and a very effective support system, as well as communication with each other. I have seen first hand how the people in the areaof the Gunflint Trail react in a situation such as the blowdown of 1999. They do a great job of looking out for one another as well as the visitors and customers in the area. If the towers are built, the area loses its draw. We people who adventure there love it the way it is. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT BUILD THE TOWER!
John Peters

It’s not just the visibility of the tower from the wilderness area. It’s not just the flashing tower lights seen from the wilderness area at night. It’s the fact that people will come into the wilderness area with cell phones. They will then want to spend their time yakking on their phones, texting, downloading pictures and videos, etc., instead of paddling, portaging, swimming and fishing. There are thousands of places in MN and elsewhere where people can use their electronics to their hearts delight. What we do not need is to come to the start or end of a lovely lake or portage and find some loudmouth (aren’t they always loud? and they will be loud in a wilderness) conducting their “private” business, checking their stocks with their broker, etc., etc. right there in the former wilderness. I’m sympathetic to people on Fernberg Rd. or elsewhere who need cell phone coverage at their houses or cabins. That can be done through smaller, more targeted technology that does not destroy the wilderness character of the BWCA!
Steve

i dont think they should build it-the idea to get into the wilderness is to get away from all the cell phones and commotion in the city-lets keep the wilderness as pure as possible-there isnt too many areas left that are left pristine!
barb millard

I live in the Isabella area and the shorter old Verison Tower has a very limited range.I don’t think it is an issue of shorter or taller towers. AT&T needs to be as efficient as possible. If they aren’t going to make money they will walk away.Yes we live and work in a remote area

but if they want to sell us a useful service who are you to deny us because a very few lights will be seen from a very small area of the BWCA
Patrick

No towers. Better yet no people.

Thousands of cellphone fingers are quivering at the thought of one area in this state void of mindless jabbering.
David

The safety argument is always a powerful trump card…that said, even under the best of conditions, in the BWCAW an EMT is probably at least 4 hours away. If you are several portages back, or not exactly sure where you are, add another couple of hours. And even longer hauling you back out. Injured in the evening? Help will get there sometime tomorrow…There is no help ASAP!

Cell coverage will dramtically increase noise (CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?), and increae the likelyhood of an emergency – because of the assumption of a safety net, more risks are taken; but the net doesn’t actually exist. If you are really concerned, there are Sat. phones to be rented.
scott

As I read through these comments it seems many, be they be well intentioned, do not really know the limited area the tower would be visable from.

The campsite on Fall L. has 3 towers already visable,

as well as a very busy campground. The site on Mud L. you will hear all the motor boats on Fall L. Then you have a portage behind the tent pad, so people coming and going are very intrusive. No other campsites are affected. If you were not at the trial, or read the transcripts then you have no facts.

There is a line that goes both ways when it comes to the BW. That line will not go away, as to date, people who live here will not either.