Should there be places where you can't be reached?
Posted at 5:00 AM on July 13, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(67 Comments)
Filed under: Environment/Energy, Science/Technology
A lawsuit has challenged the construction of a cell phone tower that would be visible from within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Today's Question: Should there be places where you can't be reached?
Comments (67)
Of course. The one thing I used to love about air travel is that once I was off the ground, no one was able to reach me. Like other primates, we go overboard with whatever we discover. I don't want to be in the circle with others picking ticks off my fur. This madness for personal communication could disappear in an instant. Just ask the KGB, FBI or any terrorist group. Half the country would go insane. But I remember when I got in my car and just took off across the country without being able to call Mum and Dad for help. It's time we start realizing how dependent we are on these ultra communication devices, and how they have been shoved into our lives by wicked corporations just looking for new bucks. It's all Madison Avenue, Baby.
This issue isn't about access to cell phone signals. The issue is that cell phone companies are allowed to place cell phone towers wherever they please.
AT&T placed a cell phone tower across the lake from my cabin in northern Minnesota. I now get to see flashing red lights as part of the evening/night skyline. While this tower gave residents better cell phone coverage, it also insured that everyone would have to use AT&T.
At&T also has plans to build a cell tower on Hawk Ridge in Duluth, which might interfere with bird migration along the ridge.
Cell phones can be placed in various locations to expand or improve coverage. But cell tower construction is a matter of companies competing with each other for the best coverage, hence putting towers on the highest, most visable points of land.
It's time for regulation regarding the placement of towers and/or regulation forcing cell phone companies to share towers.
Yes, local people should have cell phone access, but it can be done in more environmentally sensitive ways.
As for safety in the BWCAW, one should not rely on a cell phone for safety. Would a cell phone be accessible if one capsized, and how would help reach a person in time? One must use safety practices and common sense when traveling in the wilderness.
It seems to me the more pertinent question is "is there value in a place where you don't have to see constant reminders of humanity's omnipresence on the planet?" It may be simple for anyone to turn off, or not bring a cell phone if they don't want to be reached, but there is no way to avoid the presence of that tower and it's blinking lights for miles and miles around. A Wilderness is a place where we can connect unencumbered with the non-human on the planet. Think about how the tower would affect the Wilderness Act of 1964's dedication of such places to be "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man..." A cell phone packed or not packed into the BWCAW is a personal choice -- there is no choice to see or not see the tower if it is built.
There is another option that was debated when I was in college. Should we have a place where the wilderness excludes all people? Many of the college students in a class that addressed the issue said a resounding," Yes!" The wilderness that all people were to stay out of was the BWCA. Other wilderness locations would also be off limits to human activity. There would be no reason of any sort where a person would ever enter a pristine area. If this became a reality, a tower could be put up for those who need the reception. No one would be in the BWCA to see the tower. The visitors in the area could camp and canoe in the Superior National Forest.
Asking the wrong question started this off on the wrong foot. The question is, should we pollute a rare pristine skyline to achieve technological convenience.
I am a frequent BWCA vacationer and I own vacation property near the bwca. It's important to my peace of mind to know that there is one vast place in the state that we haven't 'developed', where technology doesn't rule.
If you live up there and play the safety card... A) other options exist - get a satellite phone if you feel you need one. B) find another place to live. C) accept the fact that your choice to live in a remote plate may mean that you die younger than a city dweller would have.
The notion that local residents have more of a right over the regulation and use of the arrowhead than tourists/city dwellers is preposterous. We all have a stake in this. Tourists pay for the infrastructure, eg thousands of miles of roads etc that locals use every day. Tourists come up by the millions every year and locals make a living from them. Tourists become residents. We were all visitors before we were locals.
Then there's the annoying ever prevalent encroachment of technology. It's easy to say just don't use it if you don't like it. But that's naive. Once people have access they will use it, then we all have to deal with it. Another form of the idiot box. Try enjoying your remote getaway to the woods while the latest cool ringtone blasts off in somebodys pocket and then you get to experience half of the conversation they need to have right now.
My guess is they will be able to build when it makes economic sense, there will be popular support. By then it will increase our property values. But I will never want it. I want to be lost when I'm up there, I want it to be rugged.
Why ever go camping? Why not just go in your backwayrd and turn off the phone and choose not to use the stove or electricity? Better yet why go outside ever? Why not live in bubblewrap in bed all day, that would be the safest. No you can fall out of bed, why not lay on the floor?
Are you kidding? The cell tower isn't for the visitors to the bwcaw. It's for the people who live close the the bwcaw? Yes, people live there too! It's not for "citiots" who want to get away from their congested lives for a few days or a week. What if someone who lives on the edge of the wilderness came to the twin cities or some other place and tried to take away your daily cell phone coverage. Get a clue! You don't need to take your phone with you in the bwcaw do you?
MPR - you have asked the wrong question. The lawsuit is not about whether there should cell phone coverage. The issue is the visual intrusion and degradation caused by a tower light that can seen well within the wilderness. The right question is "would your wilderness experience be damaged by seeing a cell phone tower strobe light from the middle of Basswood Lake?"
Our society has moved from being simply egocentric to blind, destructive egomania. There are no boundaries; there's nothing we can't have. This attitude has brought us the BP catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, at the very least, and will certainly bring us far, far worse.
Wireless connectivity _everywhere_ is part of this same absolute selfishness. If there are not places on earth where a human cannot be reached, then neither earth nor a genuine human can really endure.
Get over it, people. Impose some limits on yourselves, or nature will eventually impose them. And you will neither like, nor ultimately survive the results.
I am disturbed by the coverage of this question that I just heard on MPR. The organization that brought suit is NOT challenging the right of local people to have cell coverage. They are requesting a meeting with ATandT to discuss options for the cell tower that would not be visible from within the wilderness. This is not a case of recreational users telling local people how to "live their lives." It is one of a growing number of conversations about preserving the visual and auditory integrity of wilderness. The lawsuit occurred because of corporate unwillingness to engage the concern.
Yes. This is one reason the BWCA is so amazing; you can escape from people and technology. If it is absolutely necessary to have a tower, one should look into similar towers used in Truckee, CA where they are difficult to notice or see because they resemble trees.
Yes. What is the definition of "wilderness" if it is not "a place outside the reach of human civilization?"
Yes, the local residents probably desire cell coverage. But isn't there any way they can get service without taking the wild out of the wilderness in the process? Maybe smaller towers/signal boosters in town that aren't visible from and don't broadcast into the BWCAW?
And you know, just 10 years ago no one would have considered cell phone coverage an absolute necessity of life. What happened in the past decade to change that? Nothing except people's expectations. If folks in Ely think they just have to have cell phones, they could choose to move to a more densely populated area. Of course, they'd give up the pristine beauty of their current location. Such are the trade-offs of life.
NIMBYITES! Plain and simple. "Oh don't put a cell tower outside the park because I'll have to look at it." Hey turn around, yo-yo.
So turn off your TV, throw away your phone.
get a canoe and find peace on your own.
Just kidding, take your phone in case some drunks decide to shoot up your campsite.
This issue is but another in the long list of categorical threats to the area's identity, achieved agonizingly over many decades: its perpetual dedication to the opportunity for wild experience. Nothing new here, save a recent addiction to new commercial convenience. Purely antithetical to the area's long and visionary history, the proposed tower would squander a wild horizon and all future sunsets for those who spiritually need wildness, for ourselves and our progeny .
It's also an insult to the magnificent efforts of great and foresighted elders -- Sigurd Olson, Aldo Leopold, M. L. Heinselman, David Brower, et..al. I would underscore two of their salient points: "We never win, but only lose once." (Brower); and "We are rich according to what we can afford to let alone." (Leopold).
On the radio the commentator tried to frame this as an arguement of us vs them as in visitors v people who live there. This is not the case. The people who moved there knew this was a pristine wilderness area when they moved there, it has been for a very very long time. for these people that live there sat phones and sat internet is already available.
We have an obligation to protect one of the last pristine areas over the interests of the "residents" who live there. If they want service they can sell their highly desirable homes and move to more poluted and crowded areas, and not live in one of the quietest and beautiful areas of the country. I grew up on a minnesota reservation and watched how it was tore up and brought to ruin by pollution, Id rather not have to show pictures in history books to my childrens children of how beautiful the boundry waters "used" to be.
Of course. To take away the ability for someone to escape from the demands of society would be to deprive them of the most fundamental form of freedom a person can have.
Nowadays I won't even walk through the produce aisle without my phone. I have a problem.
"A lawsuit has challenged the construction of a cell phone tower that would be visible from within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Today's Question: Should there be places where you can't be reached?"
Interesting question, but not actually related to the filed lawsuit about a tower "visible" from within the Boundary Waters Wilderness.
Of course! Thank goodness former South Carolina Gov. Sanford shared his "Appalachian Trail find" with America or I don't know what I'd do!
I think it is important for people to be able to experience wilderness in its purest form. It doesn't matter than cell phones can be turned off. For me, I go to escape the *expectation* that I an reachable by cell phone at any moment.
Wilderness also gives people a chance to experience what life was like before humans so completely altered the landscape, filling it with artificial noise, light, and looming towers. When I go to the boundary waters, I like to imagine what it was like for Native Americans, French-Canadian trappers, and others who traveled the waters by canoe and lived off the land. I think it gives Minnesotans an interesting window on our history. For folks who want the wilderness experience but still want their cell phones for safety they should still go camping, but somewhere where that service is available.
While I can appreciate the desire for Ely residents to have cell phone coverage, I don't exactly buy the argument that they're living in the dark ages without cell phones. It wasn't all that long ago that none of us had them, and it doesn't seem to me like we were living in total chaos. You can call 911 from a land line, and they'll still come to your rescue.
Hard Question...One can't legislate respect for others or even common decency and I'm so tired of hearing ugly conversation in town on the buses, that I'd have to say if I went North, I wouldn't want to risk wilderness experience being ruined by yelling, cursing, and loudness...but I certainly understand people wanting to reach 911.
There are unlimited places availabe that you cannot be reached...you just have to want to not be reached. Unplug your land line, switch off your cell phone, log off your lap top, etc.
This is not about cell coverage in the BWCA, it is about supplying a service for residents that live in the Fall Lake vicinity.
I have two ideas which, together, should serve to bridge the divide between the pro and the con cell camps as it pertains to the B.W.C.A.
How about styling the tower to look like a tall, native tree ( I've seen what the minnesota zoo has done with realistic looking faux trees ) and natural sounds ring tones which, perhaps, could be purchased at the D.N.R.'s website ?
Yes, absolutely. A little wilderness is good for the soul. And so is the recognition that you're on your own for once.
Is this question really about if there should be places where one cannot be reached by cell phone? Does ANYONE remember what life was like 10+ years ago when cell phones were not ubiquitas and not regarded as necessary?
Any encroachment upon a wilderness area - "eye sore", pollution, etc., deprives the Wilderness Area of it's essential purpose.
When I go to a place like the boundry waters it is in an attempt to escape from the shadow of the Mega Corp's that stand menacingly over us every day. A tower is a reminder that the will of the people is Not greater than the will of the machine. That the will of the people has been subverted by the machine to non-sensical ends that are not ultimately in the people's best interest.
Any one who is capable of going into the boundry waters is capable of living with out cell phones for a few days (with the possible exception of the day hikers). Any one not prepared for that experience should seriously reconsider entering an area labeled "Wilderness Area."
Please remember that the proposed cell tower is NOT in the Boundary Waters. It's several miles out of Ely, MN, and is an important safety issue for people with homes and cabins in the area. A neighbor of ours had a visiting teenager who experienced a first-time seizure, and someone had to boat across the lake to access a land-line phone to call an ambulance. Many seniors in the area worry how they will receive emergency help in the event of a heart attack or stroke. I think EMERGENCY ACCESS TRUMPS SILENCE, because silence can be achieved by turning off your phone!
Just finished a 9 day BWCWA adventure. We all left our cell phones in the car. We did rent a sat phone "just in case". The only time we used it was to change our pick up time. On all our previous trips we've had no way to communicate and didn't feel jeopardized. That said, I don't think a cell tower outside the park area will pollute it. The option is always there to not take or not turn on a cell phone.
I live in Northern Minnesota and drive alot for work, I am often in areas that do not have cell phone service, I can understand both sides of the story, however, I feel that it is a safety issue for people who live in this area. In the case of a medical emergency or a car problem (in areas where it is often 20 degrees below zero or more in the winter months) cell phone service is necessary and I think the needs of people who live here should be weighted heavier than the wants of people who come to the area for a vacation.
The BWCA is all about relaxing, and you can't do it on your phone. Leave them at home.
Most people who want to spend time there, tell someone where they are going, when they should be back, and what lakes they plan to fish.
Sure they're might be emergencies, but to put a tower up there invites those idiots who have ruined once great places, like Gooseberry Falls, Cascade State Park, and a lot of places on the North Shore.
This is the one place in MN where you shouldn't need to communication with anyone, except nature and the BWCA is it.
If you have a serious incident in the boundrywaters in which you will die if you dont reach a hospital in even 2 hours, you are dead. Even with your precious cell phones. If you have serious medical conditions and want to go there, you should go with the knowledge that help is limited that you are on your own, and go prepared. Or, if you dont think you or a member of you family is up to the task stay home and go to a city park where the services your umblical cord is tied to are only minutes away. But these "Pristine" areas are going extinct, and cell phone towers and such are just pollution.
Yes.
If I had broke my ankle, had a stroke/heart attack, drowning, hunting accident with a firearm or bow, or maybe an allergic reaction to an insect bite, I'd wish there were cell phone service.
I would expect like a golf course or a movie theater, that you would shut the damn thing off or put it on vibrate.
But I think it's definitely needed.
Our cabin is about 1.6 miles from the Boundary Waters and cell phone service is sometimes very poor. Because of health concerns of some family members, we would appreciate better towers in the area. The proposed tower is outside the BWCAW border. For those who want the aesthetics of silence in the wilderness, turn off the phone and put it away or don't even take it. As for the question of whether there should be places one cannot be reached, one can have that anytime by turning off cells and losing oneself in a crowd or in the wilderness.
Yes! Why should I have to rely on others to turn "off" their electronic devices? I was just on Namakan Lake over the 4th and was mildly annoyed to know that my husband's cell phone was more operational than it had been in the past.
I would advocate for limiting cell phone towers and other communication methods in State Parks, National Parks, etc. There is risk in visiting those places and if the risk is too great then, stay within your bounds to reach emergency services, call 911, etc.
When we're on Namakan, we use a marine band radio and if we have an emergency, we are still able to call for help. I provide emergency contact info to my family with the understanding that if "life or death happens" -- well, that's life!
No!
IF someone doesn't want to be reached, they can just turn OFF 'their' cell phone.
I want to be able to reach 911 anywhere, anytime to call for help for me and mine and please don't stop me from being able to do so.
--Ben
This is tough because I have a son with Juvenile Diabetes, and if he ever wants to go to Boundary Waters I would want him to be able to reach someone in case of an emergency. Perhaps, that might be an opportunity he just won't have?
America was built on the premise of freedom, and the idea that the pursuit of happiness was something to be cherished & protected. I do not believe that having cellphone towers in the boundry waters or camera's in our home, or whatever safety instead of liberty arguement that is out there, is condusive to that. Yes there should be areas where were cannot be reached, and where the constant ringtones of the masters' shackles should not be the ruler of the day.
Where we can enjoy the sound of the water and feel the sun on our faces and smell the fresh air without the constant reminder that freedom is a fleeting illusion.
If you mean, should there be places where I'm required to give up control over my communication to go there -- then NO. Not as a matter of policy (I don't say that we have an obligation to build a cell network or something that actually reaches everywhere).
My phone and other mobile devices have this marvelous piece of technology called an "off switch" that lets me make that decision where I wish it, rather than having it forced on me by others.
(Of course there are venues where having my device cause a disturbance is completely unacceptable -- theaters during the show being an obvious case. This is a separate issue.)
In regards to the BWCAW cell phone tower,
providing essential communication accessibility to Local residents should be a priority. The friends of the BWCA is group based out of the twin cities, and they are not a local organization in Ely MN. So frankly they really need to stay out of local business. Its is great that local tourism is booming due to the throngs of people from the cites that come to enjoy the solitude of the BWCAW, but these folks do not understand the real need for the cell phone tower or understand the being able to use your phone in case of emergencies in the BWCAW can mean the difference between life and death. If you do not want to be reached don't bring your cell phone with you. Its just that simple. If you do not want to see the cell tower maybe you should paddle further into the BWCAW than the first campsite on fall lake, or venture into the Quetico Park for superb solitude.
Long Time resident, Aaron B.
The cell phone towers are just like the lakes on the edge of the BWCA that allow motorized boats. If you don't want to see motorized boats or a cell phone tower get off your lazy butt and go farther in and you won't see it. Maybe we shouldn't allow planes to fly over it either.
YES!! Absolutely! I shouldn't have to go all the way to Mazatlan before my cell phone doesn't work!! Everyone needs "down time".
The BWCAW – one of the most accessible refuges on the planet. A place to truly get away from it all (except for the campers across the lake that decided that the BWCAW was a place to party…). With cell phone coverage, now I can orient by a blinking light on the top of a tower and listen to half a phone conversation in the wilderness too! When is Wi-Fi coming?
How many non-emergency calls will all the campers on the lake get to listen to? If you have to check your office phone mail, talk to your clients, call home to check in – then you should not be camping in the BWCAW. If you really need to be in contact, I offer for your consideration - don’t go to the BWCAW. Go camping in the national forest that surrounds the BWCAW or one of the state parks. There are plenty of semi-primitive campsites, most within 30 minutes of a town, most have coverage.
To those who justify / approve of cell coverage “In case of an emergency”, I have a few questions. What is an “emergency”? A bear tearing into your food bag? A broken canoe paddle? A broken ankle? How long would it take an EMT team to come and tend to you if you were truly in need? If you had a heart attack and called 911, you would most likely be dead by the time the EMTs got to you. If there was a life or death emergency, your best bet for help is from a nearby camper.
For those that have chosen to live in the vicinity of the BWCAW, remember why you chose to live here. I understand the complaint that there is not the same level of services as in the cities (both tech and human services). Well, there is not the same level of pristine peace, natural beauty or solitude in the cities as there is “up north”. That, my friend, is the trade-off.
I believe legislators should take a page from the late Rep. Willard Munger's book. In the '90s, when trying to pass legislation where the state would purchase land to preserve in the Cloquet River Valley, Rep. Munger took lawmakers on a canoe trip down the Cloquet River to give perspective on the bill. This realist-approach proved successful and thanks to it, thousands of people have enjoyed the unadulterated views that the scenic Cloquet has to offer.
An understanding of what wilderness means to an individual is crucial in order to make an educated decision. The wild is only wild once. After its been built upon, it will never be the same.
So, with that, I believe there is a dire need to maintain areas where we can't be reached. Just because some people don't appreciate the outdoors, doesn't mean those of us with our eyes open and ears to the wind should be forced to witness the Sprawl in the Northwoods.
My family and I just spent 4 days camping at Whitewater State Park 40 miles east of Rochester, MN. There is no cell phone coverage down in the state park. Knowing it is a place where you can get information from park staff - the benefit was being able to relax and not be connected to the outside world even to check the weather. It was unbelievable to not hear cell phones ringing or people "cell yelling" in the campgrounds, river, beach, or on the trails. There was no ring from your phone or others to jolt you back to your own reality back at home.
People were connecting with each other. People were playing in nature. It brought great joy to me to see and hear kids of all ages playing and exploring and surviving.
I have spent many years in the BWCA and have survived. I guess you could have your cellphone remind you to hang your food from a tree. But why? If you are there in the BWCA, you should know that. I learned the weather patterns. I was knowledgeable about what to do for different situations. I helped and received help from other travelers. All for years without a cellphone.
It is why many go there-for that level of adventure. We are lucky in Minnesota to have such wilderness accessible to us.
If you don't want to be reached, don't bring your cell phone into the BWCA. That's kinda simple.
I don't think towers should be placed where visible from the BWCA, but it's also unfair to tell those who happen to live on its borders that they shouldn't expect to have cell phone coverage like the 'rest of us.' Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be the aim of the Friends; they simply take issue with the placement of this particular one. and I won't fault them for that.
Being removed from daily news and communication is a big part of the appeal of places like the BWCA. There are devices that will work there without a tower, for example in an emergency or to send notification to people at home that you are OK.
As technology becomes more powerful, we have more choices to make about how we want to connect, and I think it's important to consider the impact of the technology. More connections may bring more economic development... greater safety... more dependence on the technology... and more frequent reminders of our proximity to and dependence upon other people. As populations grow, how do we balance the separate spaces we create for ourselves and the shared spaces (both physical and virtual) which inevitably converge, without losing the positive qualities of each?
Definitely this is a personal choice, cuz when I am at the BWCA I tell everyone I am unavailable and turn off the cellular phone. However, I would like to see a tower in the BWCA so if I need it, I could use my cellular phone to call for help. Given some of the remote locations, it doesn't guarantee a quick response yet in a life and death situation it could make a difference.
Yes.
The next big solar flare, cascading power failure, or terrorist EMP will have us all camping for a long time.
BW should not have cell coverage... it takes away from the adventure. If you know help is only a call away your survival instincts / know-how are not tested.
DTOM
Of course. People who think they can't be separated from their "mobile devices" for a few days should really seek psychiatric help.
If you think you are essential to your work place, you're wrong. If the proverbial bus hit you today, in two weeks they'd be asking "[your name here] who?"
There is no such thing as an online friend. Friends show up to help each other and enjoy experiences together. If you think otherwise, you need help. As I've said many times before: You have no idea whether the data you see online comes from a person or from a cleverly programmed computer (studies have proved this.) Your "friend" is a piece of computer software ...
Gather your real friends, get rid of all electrically-powered objects (except for a flashlight and maybe a GPS if you are navigation-challenged) and get your butt out into the wilderness. (Just don't forget your: Lip balm, sun screen, and insect repellent.)
Maybe cell phone towers could be prettier, or made to camouflage with their surroundings. Have artists design them. It could be like the WPA...have a folk singer write songs about it, a la Woody Guthrie and Hoover Dam.
Disjointed string of miscellaneous thoughts:
I agree there should be places I can't be reached, but I am able to choose those places myself, to some extent. This does not, of course, protect me from others' bad manners or feelings of self-importance.
I understand why tour guides & such in BWCA would want the ability contact help if needed, but I don't think the towers should be allowed inside the boundaries of the area. Viewsheds are another matter, which needs further consideration.
I, too, miss the days before everyone had to be "on" all the time, and I firmly believe that technological advancement has ceased to be a benefit for humans and has become an end in itself. I have found myself craving escape from human development, but find it nearly impossible to come by in my daily life.
Can we really stop it? Already, professional guides who lead groups into remote wildernesses such as the BWCA have to carry satelite phones, for fear there may be an emergency, and they'll be sued if they've chosen not to make use of a technology that could save lives by summoning help. Eventually, like it or not, the whole planet is going to get cell-phone coverage, and the only way you'll be able to be unreachable is if you choose to be. Get used to turning your phone off if you don't want to be reached.
Most definitely!
Without question there should be places where we can enjoy total exclusion. My fear about this country is that we will have our wild areas turn into a completely managed area akin to Germany. After being stationed there in the late 90's the only wildlife I ever saw were some birds, squirrels, and rabbits. I purposely went out into areas like the Black Forrest and out among the Austrian Alps, as well as on numerous Volks Marches. I never saw any other wildlife. So, if we want our country to be like that, keep intruding in the truly sparse wild areas and we'll become just like Germany - a completely managed and manicured land.
Personally, yes, there should be places where I can't be reached. I enjoy them immensely. The BWCA question is different though, because the towers aren't located in the wilderness. Out east, there is a similar issue with the Appalachian Trail, where some people think the 'viewshed' shouldn't be soiled by cell/radio towers or windmills. So the real question we seem to be asking is: how far outside the wilderness area should wilderness protections extend?
I think we all need to make the choice whether we want to be reached. If I don't want to talk to someone, I don't answer my cell phone. If I am eating dinner, I don't answer my cell phone. If I am in public, I don't answer or make calls on my cell phone unless I absolutely have to.
That said, I do think a cell phone tower in the BWCA would be nice for if phone calls absolutely need to be made or received in emergencies.
If you do not want to be reached, there is something called the off button all phone have them! Learn how to use it, whether you are in the BWCA of the middle of the twin cities. As some one who lives in northern MN, the people that live in the northern part of the state need the cell phone tower in our daily lives. Not to mention the people in the BWCA that would like to bring their phone with just in case they need it.
If you do not want to be reached, there is something called the off button all phone have them! Learn how to use it, whether you are in the BWCA of the middle of the twin cities. As some one who lives in northern MN, the people that live in the northern part of the state need the cell phone tower in our daily lives. Not to mention the people in the BWCA that would like to bring their phone with just in case they need it.
I just got back from a week at Lake of the Woods, and while I believe there would have been cell reception, I turned my phones off and had a peaceful week. I'm now a firm believer that vacation should be cell phone free. It's a matter of self discipline, I think, and not necessarily something that needs to be imposed. To me the argument against the cell tower in the Boundary Waters is about aesthetics and potential harm to the environment.
Absolutely! While I am perfectly capable of leaving my own cell phone at home, the last thing I want to hear on a quiet Boundary Waters morning is the obnoxious ringtone of a passing canoeist.
People that are constantly on cell phones have an exagerated view of their importance. Yes there should be places where one can not be reached!!!!!!!!!
""It feels like the people who are complaining about the tower are those who go to the BWCA to get away from things, but we must keep in mind people who live there. I do feel that the people up there should have cell phone coverage if they would like it.""
Those people chose to live there. They can choose to leave if they don't like the services and want more.
There should be areas in the world that we humans haven't ruined. Of course I suppose parasites (humans) are meant to ruin it all.
If you don't want to be reached, turn off your phone. It is really easy. About the BWCA: if you can see the tower or a red flashing light, then it should not be there. So disguise it and turn off the light. After all, you don't have lights on every tree.
YES, YES and YES. When I am in those places, there is a calm and relaxation that comes over me that I cannot explain.
In fact I've been known to lie and tell my significant other and work that there is no cell service where I am going. Just to get away from that phone for a while.
While I'm all for the idea in concept, it's really not worth the courts time to consider the issue of the Boundary Waters tower when it's just as easy to simply turn off the cell phone.
Yes:
A big part of the wilderness experience is not being in touch with every day life. I don't want to be expected to carry a cell phone in the bwcaw just so I can be reached at any given time.
I feel that people should have control of when they are reached - which they do, by turning off their devices. Of course, that means that people have to take on some personal accountability.
While I agree that a tower can be an eyesore, there are examples of making them less so - Disney World in FL has a tower by Animal Kingdom that you really have to look for to realize that it is a cell tower because they have added materials to make it look like a very large tree.
It feels like the people who are complaining about the tower are those who go to the BWCA to get away from things, but we must keep in mind people who live there. I do feel that the people up there should have cell phone coverage if they would like it.
Yes, PLEASE, there should be places where we cannot be reached! The prevalence of cell phones has created the expectation that cell users are now accessible 24/7. These devices were created as a convenience for the phone owner, but raised expectations of availability have made them more of a burden for many people. I can't wait for the day when it's legal to scramble signals in public places like movie theaters, concert halls, restaurant dining rooms, libraries and theatres -- I'm tired of having my every outing interrupted by shrill ringtones and overly-loud one-way conversations. I actually MISS the days before cell phones, when you had to make an effort to get in touch with people, and people could make it 2+ hours without using the phone. And no, I'm not an "old timer" -- I'm 39.
Absolutely!
| July 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock