National Parks Traveler says we’ve got all the cellphone coverage we’ll ever need already.
As I noted earlier this month, more cell-phone access could lead to more reductions in the ranks of park rangers and the national park experience itself, as Park Service officials in Washington looking to cut costs team with private interests to provide interpretation via cell phone.
Too, there’s always the issue of solitude, which long has been a hallmark of national parks. Many folks think cell-phone use in this country is becoming incredibly rude. Some restaurants ban it, most theaters do, and there are concerns that one day soon you’ll be able to talk your head off from take-off to landing on your cross-country airline flight. Do we need it in a park’s backcountry?
On top of that, you could argue that cell phones and WiFi access will detract from a national park visit by serving as distractions. We already worry that our younger generations are becoming more and more detached from nature, and if we give kids more electronic devices to occupy themselves with during a national park trip, what will we have accomplished in trying to reverse this disconcerting trend?
Two-thirds of Yellowstone already is covered by cell phone towers. Do we need more?
Sure, I find it odd to see rants against technology on a blog — sounds like a NASCAR racer arguing against excess gasoline consumption — but we’ve all got a high-tech taint these days. Unless you, like, walk barefoot to your favorite trailhead, by which time your feet are too mushy to hike.
As for the crux of the Traveler’s argument: I can’t see how a few more cellphone towers would do that much damage, compared to the potential for backcountry fannies saved because of available cellphone reception. This doesn’t really pass the “what if it were your sister?” test — are you so adamant against backcountry cellphones that you’d deny her the ability to use one to call in a rescue?
I never go along on those ranger-guided interprative tours so I don’t see the harm in doing them via cell-phone, though I’d insist that any savings in ranger salaries go toward essentials like habitat preservation and trail maintenance.
The main issue is, do cellphones and other portable technologies hurt the parks, or merely annoy the people who visit them?
Tom, I disagree about technology-guided tours. While I think cellphones are annoying, so are campers charging their batteries & car stereos, and those aren’t about to get banned from Parks anytime soon. Cutting back on Park staffing to the point that it limits whether the experience can reach a child and turn them into a hiker or outdoor enthusiast IS a problem though. I go on about it here
It’s a bit of a logical leap to think kids won’t become interested in the outdoors if there are no rangers to take them on tours. Have they no parents, friends, fellow Cub Scouts, or their own inborn curiosity?
As I said, I’m biased on this issue because I never take the tours.
The logical leap is based on personal experience. I think the last time I took a guided tour was actually at a State Park, but it was ultimately what made me ask to join Cub Scounts (or ask enough questions about camping that my parents thought Cub Scounting was a good idea) and that of course led to the kind of guidance through the outdoors and camping that my friends have trouble finding as adults.
Even with natural curiosity it’s a big leap to go beyond the guided tour for most people – and a recording can’t tell children or adults where to look next.