BWCA Cell Tower... Boundary Waters Listening Point


BWCA Messageboard

BWCA and Quetico Park Books and Magazines

Find Outfitters for the Boundary Waters Quetico

Boundary Waters (BWCA) photo gallery and individual photo journals

Boundary Waters Message Board and Forums.

username

password

Remember Me

Moose Track Adventures Guide Service
Site Search
	Contact Us
	Route Guide

Chat Rooms (0 Chatting) | Search | Login/Join

* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.

View BWCA Photo and Trip Report Contest Page

Poll: What is your favorite month in the BWCA/Q?
(429 responses)

2012 BWCA Photo Contest Results

Boundary Waters Quetico Forum

Listening Point - General Discussion

Cell Tower...

View Boundary Waters Map Locations

Route Guide

community sponsor

Moose Track Adventures Guide Service

Last Visit: 05/19/2013 09:46AM
Sort by

Author

Message Text

BWCAngler

06/18/2012 11:55AM

Cell Tower is going to be built..

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/18/appeals-court-allows-att-cell-tower-near-bwca/

Thoughts?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

BWPaddler

06/18/2012 11:57AM

link

Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. -Thoreau

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

BWPaddler

06/18/2012 11:59AM

Personally, I think it sucks. If shorter towers would do the same job, AT&T should build those.

Done now. Doubt anyone else has changed their minds either.

Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. -Thoreau

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Harv

06/18/2012 12:00PM

Not that big of a deal, in my opinion!

People along the Fernberg road will have phone service now too.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Savage Voyageur

06/18/2012 12:06PM

Why should they be any different than us. I think all would raise a stink if your home/lake home did not have cell service. It is outside the BWCA so it should be built for the people that live and work there. Also good for any fire/police/rescue in the area. Yes you might be able to see a light at night. Last week I counted 7 jets flying over. Should we ban them too?

"So many lakes, so little time."

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

DayDreamin

06/18/2012 12:16PM

quote BWPaddler: "Personally, I think it sucks. If shorter towers would do the same job, AT&T should build those.

Done now. Doubt anyone else has changed their minds either."

I agree with you
thank goodness there is the option of the East Side of the BWCA.....for now, anyway

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Sierra1

06/18/2012 12:20PM

quote Savage Voyageur: "Why should they be any different than us. I think all would raise a stink if your home/lake home did not have cell service. It is outside the BWCA so it should be built for the people that live and work there. Also good for any fire/police/rescue in the area. Yes you might be able to see a light at night. Last week I counted 7 jets flying over. Should we ban them too?"

I agree with SV. One cannot expect those who live in the area to have to put up with no or substandard cell service especially for reaching emergency personnel. It doesn't affect 95+% of the BWCA. Even the possible remaining 5% won't see it all the time because of atmospheric condiditons. I also saw some thought as to not putting lights on it so there would be less distraction in the BWCA. What will you tell the family of a pilot who hits this thing while putting out a fire? Are you going to say "We didn't want to see the lights because it would ruin our wilderness experience?"

I'm sorry for the rant but I see a lot of interference in the lives of those who live in northern Minnesota by those who don't live in the area. Those who live there are just as concerned about the wilderness as anyone else. They just shouldn't have to pay for it with their lives because a few think their view is more important than a life.

Watch out for that rock!!!........ Oooo.... That's going to leave a mark...

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/18/2012 12:39PM

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

fitgers1

06/18/2012 12:52PM

Build it! For all the previously mentioned reasons. It's ridiculous that it is even an issue. Who are the people in this "group" that tried to fight it anyway? I bet they don't even go into the Bdub. If they do, let them go to the Q.

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” Ralph Waldo Emerson...and...“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

mooseplums

06/18/2012 12:57PM

build it

"I am haunted by waters"~Norman Maclean "A River Runs Through It"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Ho Ho

06/18/2012 01:24PM

Does it matter to any of you who say "build it" whether the taller tower really provides better service than the shorter tower, or would you build it even if it doesn't? The trial court, which heard the evidence, concluded that the higher tower would not in fact provide better service. So why build it?

The appeals court apparently disagreed about the facts. I haven't read the appellate opinion yet, but I will. If the trial court made a mistake about fact finding, then that would make a difference in my assessment.

But it bothers me that so many people have opinions about this without even knowing or apparently caring what the facts are. Best to know the key fact - will the bigger tower actually provide materially better service than the shorter tower - before getting into a shouting match about whether to build it.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

hobbydog

06/18/2012 01:33PM

I heard the shorter tower was up and operational last week. Anyone know how the coverage was from that tower?

Here is the link to the actual opinion.

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa111725-061812.pdf

It sounds like the court disagreed on how the facts were interpreted as what is the definition of severe. A small excerpt from the ruling.....

We agree with appellant’s contention that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to weigh and analyze the relative severity of the proposed tower’s adverse effect on scenic views as required under Fort Snelling. The district court’s failure to do so is apparent when one attempts to reconcile the district court’s factual findings with its conclusion that the proposed tower would have a severe adverse effect. The findings primarily focus on preserving scenic views that do not include any evidence of human existence: “people value the scenic views and the lack of evidence of humans on the 10 lakes at issue . . . .” But the district court also found that evidence of human existence (including a water tower, cabins, and existing communication towers) is already visible from one of the lakes in question and that the lake is nevertheless popular with BWCAW visitors. The district court further found that motor-boat use is allowed on four of the lakes during the summer.
In sum, the district court’s findings establish that less than fifty percent of the proposed tower will be visible from less than one percent of the BWCAW’s 1,175 lakes, several of which have scenic views that include signs of human existence. And the district court made no findings as to what degree of visibility from the less-than one percent of the lakes reaches the “severe” threshold, that is, harsh or very serious. As the district court observed, “[s]ome people are not bothered by the sight of a cell phone communication tower” but “other people find that cell towers, even outside of a protected
wilderness area, have a very negative impact on scenic views and are a negative visual esthetic.” The district court’s analysis appears to turn, in large part, on the subjective judgment that respondent advocates. But the policies embodied in MERA cannot reasonably be applied on a subjective basis. Because the district court’s findings do not sustain its legal conclusion that the proposed tower would have a severe adverse effect on scenic and esthetic resources in the BWCAW, the conclusion is erroneous as a matter of law, and this factor does not weigh against construction of the proposed tower.

The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

fitgers1

06/18/2012 01:59PM

quote Ho Ho: "But it bothers me that so many people have opinions about this without even knowing or apparently caring what the facts are. Best to know the key fact - will the bigger tower actually provide materially better service than the shorter tower - before getting into a shouting match about whether to build it.

"

I agree with you. It can be bothersome becuase so many people have opinions and not all opinions are based on facts.
There aren't a whole lot of facts to this case though. It's simple. See a tower or don't see a tower. The key fact about this is whether or not someone is going to see a blinking red light at night or a couple inches of a tower over the tree line during the day. Is that not what started all of this? It has nothing to do with whether a short or tall tower will work. It is about seeing a light or a tower. My opinion on that is this - big deal. Get over it. (I'm not talking directly to you as you are using other facts, I am referring to the people that don't want to see a blinking light). Big deal if you see a tower. I bet there are a lot of wilderness areas in this country where there are towers visible from within.
If Donald Trump decided to build a 50 story highrise up there with a casino, high priced condos and suites and a hotel and water park on his own property 5 miles from the bdub would that be stopped to? I would hope not as it would probably supply a lot of jobs. Granted this will most likely never happen but it's a possibility. Doesn't have to be the Donald either. ha.
My dumb point is while yes I agree with you, it isn't about what will work and what will not. It is about some people complaining about seeing a tower.
Big whoopteedooo.

maybe the towers should be made to look like great big white pines.

ps I also heard the shorter one was up and running. So why is this still an issue?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

fitgers1

06/18/2012 02:02PM

Would just like to add...If they can build a great big highway bridge over the scenic St Croix National Riverway, they can build a tower outside of the wilderness.

I'd like to add that I would prefer not to see one either, nobody wants to. Just seems to be a big waste of energy and resources for something that in the big scope of it all, is truly a insignificant deal.

Aren't there bigger fish to fry in this world?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

HowardSprague

06/18/2012 02:22PM

"Enjoy every sandwich"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tonyyarusso

06/18/2012 02:38PM

Given that a) shorter towers are an option, and b) disguising towers to look like trees is an option (they made them do that near the St. Croix somewhere), it seems stupid to build a tall, undisguised tower in this location. There are two (or more) perfectly good ways of providing just as good of service to the residents in the area in a way that doesn't impact the BWCA, but AT&T doesn't feel like doing them.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Whitepine

06/18/2012 02:44PM

I have seen the glow from the lights of Ely while on Burt Lake in the Quetico. I think that the city should enforce a dusk to dawn lights out policy!

Tall or short, I really don't care. Build something to improve or provide cell service to the local folks who need it.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

AndySG

06/18/2012 03:03PM

AT&T will make more money from the larger tower since they plan to rent tower space to other communication providers. Its called capitalism. I like capitalism but it does have an ugly side known as "greed."

Sincerely yours, Andy

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

chesapeakes

06/18/2012 03:04PM

If I could build a shorter tower for a fraction of the cost of a taller tower and get the same service I would do it. Why spend the extra money? I wouldn't. The people at AT&T aren't going to waiste the money if it won't provide better coverage.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

mr.barley

06/18/2012 03:07PM

quote hobbydog: "I heard the shorter tower was up and operational last week. Anyone know how the coverage was from that tower?"

I came out of Mudro yesterday and didn't have coverage at the landing. Didn't actually get coverage until I was rolling back down the Echo Trail a ways.

Because I'm wearing one and I just did....

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

BWPaddler

06/18/2012 03:28PM

Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. -Thoreau

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Soledad

06/18/2012 03:33PM

@chesapeakes
Yeah they would, Like AndySG said they will lease out the tower to other providers. IT IS ALL IN THE NAME OF $

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

bojibob

06/18/2012 03:44PM

quote Ho Ho: The appeals court apparently disagreed about the facts. I haven't read the appellate opinion yet, but I will. If the trial court made a mistake about fact finding, then that would make a difference in my assessment.
"

Can you translate for us ? Pro Bono of course :-)

STATE OF MINNESOTA ~ Court Of Appeals Ruling ~ A11-1725

"One inch on the map ~ is not one inch on the ground"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

bojibob

06/18/2012 03:51PM

Actual Impact as projected by the "Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness"

"One inch on the map ~ is not one inch on the ground"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

roxysmeows

06/18/2012 04:15PM

A disappointing ruling from my own personal standpoint, but probably one that was inevitable given the power of corporations these days and the purported need for cell phone access everywhere. What did people do a few decades ago without cell phones? The same issues are relevant in gateway communities outside of Yellowstone, Shenandoah, and many other National Parks. The BWCA is unique in its designation as a wilderness area given its number of visitors per year compared to other designated wilderness areas that receive minimal documented travel. Developments have continued outside of National Parks and you will indeed see the effects of those developments (e.g., night lights) within the park.

Definitely, people living in Ely should be allowed to have cell coverage for safety and personal reasons. Without a doubt. However, I doubt it was the clamoring of Ely residents that got AT&T to try to build this tower. Instead, AT&T found a market in need into which they could expand. Likewise, if coverage for Ely residents was the issue, then AT&T should be able to find 2-3 sites to build towers with lower heights to accomplish that goal. For AT&T the goal of a 450 ft tower is not just to provide coverage to Ely residents in need.

Speaking from a wildlife biologist's perspective, another issue worth considering is the likelihood of bird collisions with the tower. This is an issue anywhere, but especially important in a location adjacent to a designated wilderness or wildlife refuge where bird abundance is likely to be higher. I hope that AT&T is held accountable for designing towers to minimize the likelihood of bird collisions and for mitigation efforts with regards to threatened, endangered, and senstive species. I would think that this issue would be the next potential lawsuit in the making for this tower.

We just took a trip out of Farm Lake, through the Kawishiwi River and south through clear Clear Lake, which would be areas affected based on the map just posted. Frankly, the noise of motorboats from the Farm Lake area was more of a nuisance than any cell tower would be although I still wouldn't appreciate seeing any tower during my BWCA experience.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

web2xs

06/18/2012 04:39PM

After seeing the map, the impact is trivial. Who even camps that close to the EP's and outer boarders. The benefits to the locals are more significant, the tower is big enough to be shared, so the other major carriers will not need to build another tower for themselves. Honestly, seems like a win-win situation. But; you would think the lights could be kept off, and only turned on when safety concerns arise. Maybe some kind of proximity sensor controlled light. That's the only thing I would implement if I had any influence or power in this world to shake it.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Beaverjack

06/18/2012 05:41PM

Tower now, neon hotel and casino signs down the road. Locals will need that too.

Tony

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/18/2012 06:06PM

I'm amazed at the opposition to this tower. First the tower is OUTSIDE the BWCA. Second because it's outside the BWCA if you are not a local your opinion doesn't matter especially so if you have a personal cell phone at home.

The area within the BWCA where there is even a possibility of seeing the tower is negligible. On the odd chance that you can see the tower I don't think it will be all that hard for the offended tripper to ignore it and focus on the over-abundant beauty that surrounds them.

Most of us come to the BWCA for a wide variety of reasons. Whatever your particular reason if just knowing that a cell tower is located near (OUTSIDE) the BWCA - if that ruins your idea of a "Wilderness" experience - you've got other issues and I'd suggest you consider your next trip to the interior of Canada or Alaska.

I'd be one of the first people in line to protest if the tower or roads or development was being proposed WITHIN the BWCA but it isn't and the chances of that happening are ss likely as the Republicans winning New York or California in November. It just isn't going to happen.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tonyyarusso

06/18/2012 07:12PM

quote LuvMyBell: "Second because it's outside the BWCA if you are not a local your opinion doesn't matter especially so if you have a personal cell phone at home.
Huh, and here I thought the BWCA was a national resource that anyone could care about. I must have missed the memo saying only people who own adjacent land matter. Good thing nobody who didn't live near me ever weighed in on whether a football stadium should go in Arden Hills. Oh wait...

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

h20

06/18/2012 07:21PM

May come in handy in a back country emergency.

Buy the ticket, take the ride .Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Savage Voyageur

06/18/2012 08:02PM

Are we forgetting that this ruling was made by a Minnesota Court of Appeals and was heard by three Judges? This was not taken lightly but taken to the highest court in Minnesota. Like it or not it is the best system in the world.

"So many lakes, so little time."

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tonyyarusso

06/18/2012 08:14PM

quote Savage Voyageur: "This was not taken lightly but taken to the highest court in Minnesota. Like it or not it is the best system in the world. "
Second highest. And by what measure are you able to declare it the best in the world?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Savage Voyageur

06/18/2012 08:22PM

quote tonyyarusso: "quote Savage Voyageur: "This was not taken lightly but taken to the highest court in Minnesota. Like it or not it is the best system in the world. "
Second highest. And by what measure are you able to declare it the best in the world?"

Name a better court system in the world, i would like to hear which one. And sorry if I misspoke, I stand corrected 2nd highest court in Minnesota.

Like the ruling or not it is now law. If you don't like it vote them in or out in November. Simple as that.

"So many lakes, so little time."

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

jb in the wild

06/18/2012 10:07PM

If we don't live there it's non of our business. Just because we go up there a few times a year does not give us the right to impose what we think is right for them. This horse has been beaten to death so many times on this forum.
Does anyone know what line of site is. Once your in the woods you will be very hard pressed to see a tower, unless you're looking for it.

JB

You can't explain the obvious to the ignorant.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

fitgers1

06/18/2012 10:32PM

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Ho Ho

06/18/2012 10:46PM

The court of appeals can still be reversed by the state supreme court. Just as the court of appeals reversed the trial court. Those who say "the judges are infallible," was that your view when the trial court ruled the other way? What about when you disagree with court rulings? I have great respect for judges and I think the state judges in Minnesota earn that respect. That does not mean they are always right.

To paraphrase a now-dead supreme court justice: "the supreme court does not have the last word about what the law says because it is infallible. It is infallible because it has the last word."

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tonyyarusso

06/18/2012 11:13PM

quote fitgers1: "I have to ask. By what measure do you question that it isn't? If that's what you are doing. "
I just don't like claims with no real basis generally.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Curmudgeon

06/18/2012 11:39PM

I will happily look at a tower from my campsite as I look at photos on my Ipad of what the BWCA used to look like.

Maybe I'll even order a slick new piece of gear from some outfitter Ely and pay them to bring it out to me at my campsite.

And if I get sick of the tower view, I'll look the other way, or close my eyes and reflect.

If future generations are gonna visit places like the BWCA, cell connectivity will likely be a requirement from their part. Personally I would embrace it.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

h20

06/18/2012 11:53PM

quote Curmudgeon: "I will happily look at a tower from my campsite as I look at photos on my Ipad of what the BWCA used to look like.

Maybe I'll even order a slick new piece of gear from some outfitter Ely and pay them to bring it out to me at my campsite.

And if I get sick of the tower view, I'll look the other way, or close my eyes and reflect.

If future generations are gonna visit places like the BWCA, cell connectivity will likely be a requirement from their part. Personally I would embrace it.
":) you're living up to your name. keep it up.

Buy the ticket, take the ride .Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

mutz

06/18/2012 11:56PM

build the tower the people in Ely need it. If you can see the light from your camp and can't tolerate it move to a different campsite. As far as tonyyazusso's comments they don't even justify a response.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

jb in the wild

06/19/2012 06:05AM

This tower is just part of civilization, if you want wilderness don't stop at one or two portages. Keep going, the farther you go in the better your experience.

There is always Quetico

JB

You can't explain the obvious to the ignorant.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 06:32AM

Quote Tonyarusso: Huh, and here I thought the BWCA was a national resource that anyone could care about. I must have missed the memo saying only people who own adjacent land matter. Good thing nobody who didn't live near me ever weighed in on whether a football stadium should go in Arden Hills. Oh wait..."

Yes, the BWCA is a National resource, and like I said if this tower was being built WITHIN the BWCA, I'd join in the protest. What part of OUTSIDE the BWCA are you not getting?

As far as your memo comment goes....During any proposed new development the law requires that ADJACENT landowners be notified in writing and given the opportunity to give their opinions. It doesn't say all landowners in that city, or state or country but adjacent landowners.

I'd be willing to bet that the reason providing comments on the new football stadium was open to more than adjacent landowners was because public (state-wide) tax dollars were going to be used to fund the stadium. Big difference between this and the AT&T cell tower.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 07:38AM

quote tonyyarusso: "quote fitgers1: "I have to ask. By what measure do you question that it isn't? If that's what you are doing. "
I just don't like claims with no real basis generally."

Agreed, to decide which system of judgment is the 'world's best' would require a deep knowledge of government history dating back to antiquity. Its like claiming the US is the greatest country ever. I am sure Pericles, Xerxes, and Caesar would disagree. I leave these types of judgments to history.

Cyrus the Great of Persia oversaw the creation of a widely acceptable justice system, even allowing slave jews the rights to justice - The Histories, Herodotus.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 07:45AM

@LuvMyBell

"Yes, the BWCA is a National resource, and like I said if this tower was being built WITHIN the BWCA, I'd join in the protest. What part of OUTSIDE the BWCA are you not getting?"

If you study legal opinions/ruling dealing with the wilderness act, you will find plenty of examples of a wilderness area's impact extending beyond its physical boundary. You will also find rulings allowing for non-wilderness impacts extending into wilderness areas. Two examples; the Frank Church Wilderness Area in Idaho (non-wilderness area allowed to impede on the wilderness area) and the La Madre Wilderness Area outside of Las Vegas - If you research their creation you will find many "cell tower" type things having to be dealt with.

With all this stated I am fine with the cell tower being built, and am fine with cell-phones in the BW.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Basspro69

06/19/2012 07:48AM

Dammit I wont be satisfied until I can order dominoes from
Fourtown lake, is that too much to ask :-)

" I want to know Gods thoughts , The rest are details " Albert Einstein.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 07:53AM

And finally, lets just install one of these at each campsite.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

fitgers1

06/19/2012 08:05AM

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

The Great Outdoors

06/19/2012 08:09AM

quote tonyyarusso: "Given that a) shorter towers are an option, and b) disguising towers to look like trees is an option (they made them do that near the St. Croix somewhere), it seems stupid to build a tall, undisguised tower in this location. There are two (or more) perfectly good ways of providing just as good of service to the residents in the area in a way that doesn't impact the BWCA, but AT&T doesn't feel like doing them."
I hate to repeat this over and over again, but some need to be reminded:
THE TOWER IS NOT BEING BUILT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BWCAW!!!
Many years ago, building a Casino in Ely was suggested.
When the arguments against it came in, one was "no, because it's too close to the BWCA!"
What's too close the next time, Virginia, Duluth, St. Cloud, etc???
How about "I can smell the steaks grilling at the Rockwood, or the Ely Steakhouse by U.S. Point on Basswood if the wind and humidity is just right???
Where does this madness end???
Environmental groups need to pick their fights where fact is the basis of the argument, not emotion! (and "I can see the tower" is based on emotion!! (even though actually seeing the tower in a few places, is indeed, a fact)
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

PINETREE

06/19/2012 08:15AM

I only thing I will say AT&T even admitted(1 year ago) 2 shorter towers strategically placed would give better coverage. There was talk in the communications industry they were not doing as well as other carriers and wanted to just well put it lightly they want to be King of the Hill and show Verizon etc. they can do play in the same league. I guess they done this a few other places.

Sig: All of us our Dreamers. Dreams are what started everything. We our asking ourselves a great question? all of us interested in wilderness preservation are asking...What kind of world do we want.?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 08:56AM

quote The Great Outdoors: "quote tonyyarusso: "Given that a) shorter towers are an option, and b) disguising towers to look like trees is an option (they made them do that near the St. Croix somewhere), it seems stupid to build a tall, undisguised tower in this location. There are two (or more) perfectly good ways of providing just as good of service to the residents in the area in a way that doesn't impact the BWCA, but AT&T doesn't feel like doing them."
I hate to repeat this over and over again, but some need to be reminded:
THE TOWER IS NOT BEING BUILT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BWCAW!!!
Many years ago, building a Casino in Ely was suggested.
When the arguments against it came in, one was "no, because it's too close to the BWCA!"
What's too close the next time, Virginia, Duluth, St. Cloud, etc???
How about "I can smell the steaks grilling at the Rockwood, or the Ely Steakhouse by U.S. Point on Basswood if the wind and humidity is just right???
Where does this madness end???
Environmental groups need to pick their fights where fact is the basis of the argument, not emotion! (and "I can see the tower" is based on emotion!! (even though actually seeing the tower in a few places, is indeed, a fact)
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!"

Building a casino would be a huge economic impact to the area. I am sure the enviros would rather have a casino than minning.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Ho Ho

06/19/2012 09:18AM

I have now read the appellate court's opinion, and I read the trial court's opinion when it came out about a year ago. I wonder if any others of you have bothered to read it to find out what the court based its opinion on? Or would it just interfere with the rhetoric to actually find out the facts?

The trial court found that the 500-foot tower would NOT provide better service to residents of the Fernberg than the 200-foot tower. And, importantly, the appellate court did NOT reverse this finding. So there is simply no basis for arguing that this tall tower somehow provides better service to residents than the short tower. Yet, almost everyone spouting off in favor of the tall tower assumes that is the case. The evidence at trial (taken from AT&T's own engineering analyses) showed that the 500-foot tower is no better.

Then why did the appellate court reverse the trial court and allow the taller tower? Because it found that the impact on the BWCA would not be "serious" enough to trigger application of the relevant state law. I think that is a debatable point. To me, it will have a very negative impact. But because the appellate court found there will not be a serious impact on the BWCA, AT&T is allowed to build the taller tower, even though it won't provide better service than the shorter tower.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

The Great Outdoors

06/19/2012 09:18AM

YaMarVa
I doubt it!
Look at their reaction to a cell phone tower being built outside of the Bdub!!
The only thing (to them) the world has too little of, is wilderness.
Nothing else is necessary, or they fail to realize the necessity of many other things that come from mining, logging, farming, slaughterhouses, etc. etc! :)

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

BWPaddler

06/19/2012 10:03AM

quote Ho Ho: "I have now read the appellate court's opinion, and I read the trial court's opinion when it came out about a year ago. I wonder if any others of you have bothered to read it to find out what the court based its opinion on? Or would it just interfere with the rhetoric to actually find out the facts?

The trial court found that the 500-foot tower would NOT provide better service to residents of the Fernberg than the 200-foot tower. And, importantly, the appellate court did NOT reverse this finding. So there is simply no basis for arguing that this tall tower somehow provides better service to residents than the short tower. Yet, almost everyone spouting off in favor of the tall tower assumes that is the case. The evidence at trial (taken from AT&T's own engineering analyses) showed that the 500-foot tower is no better.

Then why did the appellate court reverse the trial court and allow the taller tower? Because it found that the impact on the BWCA would not be "serious" enough to trigger application of the relevant state law. I think that is a debatable point. To me, it will have a very negative impact. But because the appellate court found there will not be a serious impact on the BWCA, AT&T is allowed to build the taller tower, even though it won't provide better service than the shorter tower."
Thanks, I did read it too. Seems to me the courts disagreed on a subjective issue - whether or not cell lights are "severely" offensive, and how they relate to other man-made-and-visible items in the same proposed area (cabins, motorboats, etc.). So because one of the impacted BW lakes also has other man-made items in view, it's OK to add this item since the view is already impacted. All man-made impacts are apparently equal.

The appeals court also seemed to consider the tower's impact to the entire wilderness area (ie as being a small impact compared to the thousands of unimpacted acres). I personally think that aspect is irrelevant - there are more towers to come, why should the first get preferential treatment because the others aren't there yet?

The bottom line for me was that an alternative was available that could be win-win for all, and I personally think AT&T should have had to use that alternative.

A defendant may defeat a prima facie claim by affirmatively proving that “there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare.” Minn. Stat. § 116B.04. This affirmative defense must be considered “in light of the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction,” and “[e]conomic considerations alone shall not constitute a defense.” Id.

I do not believe AT&T has proven that there is NO feasible and prudent alternative.

Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. -Thoreau

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

hobbydog

06/19/2012 10:36AM

quote LuvMyBell:

Most of us come to the BWCA for a wide variety of reasons. Whatever your particular reason if just knowing that a cell tower is located near (OUTSIDE) the BWCA - if that ruins your idea of a "Wilderness" experience - you've got other issues and I'd suggest you consider your next trip to the interior of Canada or Alaska.

This is an emotional issue for sure. A lot of people are not as concerned with the tower as they are with the fact that someone can share a beautiful sunset on FB as it happens. Somehow they let that thought diminish their experience. Really?

I personally hate hearing the drone of motorboats or even a distant ATV but I tolerate it. One (of many) reason I do BWCA trips is to escape intolerance. There is so much of that these days. Nobody will likely change their minds on this issues but take a deep breath and ask yourself how much this will really impact you other than the thought of it being there.

I personally do not like the blowdown areas or the burnouts and crowded lakes near the bigger entry points....I occasionally use them but generally avoid them. I am sure those that won't want to see these lights will add a couple of more campsites to the list of ones to not use again.

One thing that will really like about cell phone coverage is a good hourly weather/wind forecast. It helps me maximize my not often enough trips. Others may like the uncertainty. Neither is right or wrong nor is GPS vs paper map and compass.

If you really want to maximize your wilderness experience...find the long portages. :-)

The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

PINETREE

06/19/2012 10:50AM

I was listening on the radio today and the Court itself said(their conclusion) the taller Tower really did not give any additional coverage to the Residents on the Fernberg. The extra 250 feet height gave a total of 17% extra coverage overall. Much of that would be directed to wooded areas.

Sig: All of us our Dreamers. Dreams are what started everything. We our asking ourselves a great question? all of us interested in wilderness preservation are asking...What kind of world do we want.?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 11:09AM

quote PINETREE: "I was listening on the radio today and the Court itself said(their conclusion) the taller Tower really did not give any additional coverage to the Residents on the Fernberg. The extra 250 feet height gave a total of 17% extra coverage overall. Much of that would be directed to wooded areas."

So which is it....does that 500 foot tower provide more coverage than the 200 foot tower? Pinetree indicates it provides 17% more coverage. Others have implied there is NO additional benefit/coverage from the taller tower.

In the end, it's really irrelevant. The courts have spoken. AT&T is building the taller tower OUTSIDE the BWCA because it feels there is some benefit. Surely a 200' tower is cheaper to build than a 500' tower.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

hobbydog

06/19/2012 11:14AM

quote PINETREE: "I was listening on the radio today and the Court itself said(their conclusion) the taller Tower really did not give any additional coverage to the Residents on the Fernberg. The extra 250 feet height gave a total of 17% extra coverage overall. Much of that would be directed to wooded areas."

This is what was also in the paper....

"The affected natural resource, broad scenic views with no visible signs of man, is not replaceable," Bush said. The smaller tower would provide only 17 percent less coverage, he said. But AT&T disputed that finding in its appeal, saying it provides 113 percent less coverage, the equivalent of 72 square miles.

Also, when this case was argued to the appeals court this was a quote out of the paper.....

http://www.startribune.com/local/146207945.html

Much of the discussion focused on the coverage difference between a shorter and a taller tower. Judge Michelle Larkin said a diagram showing the difference "was compelling."

The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 11:16AM

quote LuvMyBell: "quote PINETREE: "I was listening on the radio today and the Court itself said(their conclusion) the taller Tower really did not give any additional coverage to the Residents on the Fernberg. The extra 250 feet height gave a total of 17% extra coverage overall. Much of that would be directed to wooded areas."

So which is it....does that 500 foot tower provide more coverage than the 200 foot tower? Pinetree indicates it provides 17% more coverage. Others have implied there is NO additional benefit/coverage from the taller tower.

In the end, it's really irrelevant. The courts have spoken. AT&T is building the taller tower OUTSIDE the BWCA because it feels there is some benefit. Surely a 200' tower is cheaper to build than a 500' tower."

That is correct, it would expand coverage slightly. 17% is still an increase, and seems measurable to me.
You are still using the OUTSIDE argument (apparently putting it in caps makes it more of a point), did my post above give you any insight that this argument is useless in the courts eyes? As stated above, there is a long list of wilderness areas having an impact beyond their physical border.
But as state above, I support the tower because I feel it does not greatly deter from the ideal of wilderness.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

PINETREE

06/19/2012 11:25AM

Yes it was 17% more(This may be area like square footage,not more distance-distance between tower types may be less),yes two 200 footers would of given more and better coverage overall. Like I said the area of additional coverage would mostly be in swamp and wooded area. Residential areas were covered by the 200 foot tower.

Limitation on coverage because of distance by strength of signal sent must come in effect,along with band width(probably wrong term)?

Sig: All of us our Dreamers. Dreams are what started everything. We our asking ourselves a great question? all of us interested in wilderness preservation are asking...What kind of world do we want.?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 01:46PM

quote YaMarVa: "quote LuvMyBell: "quote PINETREE: "I was listening on the radio today and the Court itself said(their conclusion) the taller Tower really did not give any additional coverage to the Residents on the Fernberg. The extra 250 feet height gave a total of 17% extra coverage overall. Much of that would be directed to wooded areas."

So which is it....does that 500 foot tower provide more coverage than the 200 foot tower? Pinetree indicates it provides 17% more coverage. Others have implied there is NO additional benefit/coverage from the taller tower.

In the end, it's really irrelevant. The courts have spoken. AT&T is building the taller tower OUTSIDE the BWCA because it feels there is some benefit. Surely a 200' tower is cheaper to build than a 500' tower."

That is correct, it would expand coverage slightly. 17% is still an increase, and seems measurable to me.
You are still using the OUTSIDE argument (apparently putting it in caps makes it more of a point), did my post above give you any insight that this argument is useless in the courts eyes? As stated above, there is a long list of wilderness areas having an impact beyond their physical border.
But as state above, I support the tower because I feel it does not greatly deter from the ideal of wilderness.
"

You are correct that my use of caps on the word 'OUTSIDE' was to emphasize my point. However this point has nothing to do with the legal mumbo-jumbo.....That's settled law now unless it goes to the MN Supreme Court and gets over-turned.

My emphasis on 'OUTSIDE' was for the members who oppose the tower because they feel this is some sort of infringement on the wilderness experience. I just don't see it that way.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Curmudgeon

06/19/2012 01:51PM

quote h20: "quote Curmudgeon: "I will happily look at a tower from my campsite as I look at photos on my Ipad of what the BWCA used to look like.

Maybe I'll even order a slick new piece of gear from some outfitter Ely and pay them to bring it out to me at my campsite.

And if I get sick of the tower view, I'll look the other way, or close my eyes and reflect.

If future generations are gonna visit places like the BWCA, cell connectivity will likely be a requirement from their part. Personally I would embrace it.
":) you're living up to your name. keep it up."

It's what your grands kids will want. This is the future and it's coming fast!! :)

A cell tower is coming to the Gunflint area as well and I say it's about time.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

HowardSprague

06/19/2012 02:42PM

I doubt I'm the only one who gets some sort of pleasure in telling people, "There's no cell phone service where I'm going" - especially to people who are surgically attached to their cell phones and might be the workaholic types whose time in the office + time connected to the office averages 18 hrs a day.
After this is done,we might need BWCA maps with special shading of "beyond cell tower range" areas -- and then have to get an early start to reach those newly higher-demand campsites.

Forget the blinking red light factor - look out for the "My wife knows the phone works on these trips now, so I have to call every night.."..and bad stuff like keeping track of the time to go on the rise.

"Enjoy every sandwich"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Curmudgeon

06/19/2012 03:07PM

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Soledad

06/19/2012 03:08PM

Luckily my fancy smartphone will not last 8 hours on a battery. It will stay at home with my guns. I can still avoid checking in daily with work and anyone else.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 03:29PM

quote Soledad: "Luckily my fancy smartphone will not last 8 hours on a battery. It will stay at home with my guns. I can still avoid checking in daily with work and anyone else."
Goal0 makes an affordable line of lightweight reliable solar products that will charge any electronic gadget (cell phone-ipod-gps-camera-laptop-camcorder) that you may decide to bring to the BWCA so you no longer have to worry about how long a battery will last.

This will undoubtably sound like manna from heaven to some and like the world is ending to others. The good news is that noone can force you to bring electronic gear with you if that isn't your idea of a BWCA experience.

To each his/her own I say.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 03:44PM

I will choose not to bring my cell-phone with me, problem solved.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 03:53PM

quote YaMarVa: "I will choose not to bring my cell-phone with me, problem solved. "

Ditto. In fact of all the electronic gadgets I mentioned (I own them all) I only choose to bring a camcorder and gps.But I dont have an issue with anyone in my group or not who chooses to bring any of these items.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

DayDreamin

06/19/2012 04:40PM

quote Soledad: "Luckily my fancy smartphone will not last 8 hours on a battery. It will stay at home with my guns. I can still avoid checking in daily with work and anyone else."

wow, what kind of phone do you use? My battery lasts 48hrs on my DroidX

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/19/2012 04:50PM

quote DayDreamin: "quote Soledad: "Luckily my fancy smartphone will not last 8 hours on a battery. It will stay at home with my guns. I can still avoid checking in daily with work and anyone else."

wow, what kind of phone do you use? My battery lasts 48hrs on my DroidX"

There are several factors that determine how long a battery lasts; age and useage are primary. If you get 48 hours I'm guessing you don't use the phone much.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Basspro69

06/19/2012 06:19PM

Choices

" I want to know Gods thoughts , The rest are details " Albert Einstein.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

YaMarVa

06/19/2012 06:38PM

quote The Great Outdoors: "YaMarVa
I doubt it!
Look at their reaction to a cell phone tower being built outside of the Bdub!!
The only thing (to them) the world has too little of, is wilderness.
Nothing else is necessary, or they fail to realize the necessity of many other things that come from mining, logging, farming, slaughterhouses, etc. etc! :)"

I am all fine with more "wilderness", but just not at the expense of peoples livelihood (which is an ambiguous idea, one's livelihood). I am too young to remember the BWCA's creation, but I am sure someone could argue for the lose of people's livelihood. I am conflicted because I like technology and driving my car. But I also like to drink clean lake water, catch naturally reproducing fish (not the DNR made state fish, the walleye), and have the ability to travel deep into the woods. Without wild lands there would be no deep woods to travel into.

"Miller owns that field, Locke that, and the Mannings the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." - R.W.Emmerson.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Savage Voyageur

06/19/2012 06:39PM

quote Basspro69: " Choices "

LOL, 60% of the time it works every time.

"So many lakes, so little time."

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Soledad

06/19/2012 07:53PM

quote DayDreamin: "quote Soledad: "Luckily my fancy smartphone will not last 8 hours on a battery. It will stay at home with my guns. I can still avoid checking in daily with work and anyone else."

wow, what kind of phone do you use? My battery lasts 48hrs on my DroidX"
Samsung Galaxy Nexus- 4G uses the battery much faster.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tremolo

06/20/2012 06:45PM

When can we get wireless? Gotta bring my I-Crap.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tremolo

06/20/2012 06:45PM

When can we get wireless? Gotta bring my I-Crap.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

john 800

06/21/2012 05:53AM

One question I have that I have not seen an answer for is exactly how far away is it? I whave a feeling you wil need to be looking for it to see it. Looking for something to complain about is all to common, so are political threads on this board.
Everytime I hear someone talk about something that would/did "ruin my wilderness experieance" I roll my eyes and resist the temptation to make them wear a sign. You were never in the wilderness, weather it is labeled as such or not.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Beaverjack

06/21/2012 06:09AM

quote HowardSprague: "I doubt I'm the only one who gets some sort of pleasure in telling people, "There's no cell phone service where I'm going" - especially to people who are surgically attached to their cell phones and might be the workaholic types whose time in the office + time connected to the office averages 18 hrs a day.
After this is done,we might need BWCA maps with special shading of "beyond cell tower range" areas -- and then have to get an early start to reach those newly higher-demand campsites.

Forget the blinking red light factor - look out for the "My wife knows the phone works on these trips now, so I have to call every night.."..and bad stuff like keeping track of the time to go on the rise."

My sentiments exactly. Not only is it a threat to the "wilderness" as a remote, non-civilized place, it is also contrary to a true a wilderness experience. Let's make it all safe and attractive for all the ADD yuppies with their gizmos and itineraries, pack Ely with their RVs and let 'em spend lots of money - great for everyone except those who want to get away from all that crap.

Tony

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/21/2012 06:53AM

Anyone looking for a true wilderness experience - to get away from all that crap - needs to set their sights a bit farther North in the Q or Alaska. C'mon, the BWCA is a wonderful place, a unique outdoor experience, but it is not a wilderness. You are never more than a days paddle from civilization anywhere within the BWCA.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tremolo

06/21/2012 07:43AM

quote LuvMyBell: "
Anyone looking for a true wilderness experience - to get away from all that crap - needs to set their sights a bit farther North in the Q or Alaska. C'mon, the BWCA is a wonderful place, a unique outdoor experience, but it is not a wilderness. You are never more than a days paddle from civilization anywhere within the BWCA.

"

It depends on how you define wilderness and your definition is not mine. Mine is informed by Sig Olson, Aldo Leopold, Terry Tempence Williams, Edward Abbey (especially Edward Abbey) John Muir, Annie Dillard and others. Wilderness, like art museums, provides a space for what is sacred and enduring. Yes, there are borders and landscapes that contain elements of both human scape and wild life. As "progress" and "consumerism" and a heightened desire for the kinds of safety net civilization provides influences what we need or want from the wilderness experience, we owe it to future generations to weigh the possible negative consequences of messing with nature.

When I saw the wolves on Lake Lunetta last August, they were living in the wilderness. The scope of an ecosystem is perhaps one parameter of "true wilderness" but a million acres is a large swath whether it is a two day paddle for an human or not. Try to imagine the perspective of a wolf or a loon rather than a human perspective. Do they feel they need more space to be in the wild? Are they looking for a bigger back yard? Are they living true., wild and free?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

HowardSprague

06/21/2012 10:33AM

quote LuvMyBell: "
Anyone looking for a true wilderness experience - to get away from all that crap - needs to set their sights a bit farther North in the Q or Alaska. C'mon, the BWCA is a wonderful place, a unique outdoor experience, but it is not a wilderness. You are never more than a days paddle from civilization anywhere within the BWCA.
"

There are thousands and thousands of acres with no humans permanently residing in it. Somewhere there's a pack of wolves gnawing on a moose carcass. Millions of trees. Hundreds of lakes. No buildings or roads. Plants and animals and natural ecosystems. Bears. Critters. Lots and lots of rocks. Waterfalls. You can go without hardly seeing anyone, depending on when and where. Depending on where you are, it could take a couple days to get out. It's wild. You can see millions of stars at night and hear loon calls above everything else. You call that a park or something? No. It's a friggin' wilderness, I don't care what any of you say.

(I suppose that McCandless guy (Into the Wild), where he was in Alaska was not wilderness either because he died in a bus. Ok.)

"Enjoy every sandwich"

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/21/2012 11:18AM

I guess everyone has their own definition of 'wilderness' and that is okay. I love the BWCA for what is does offer - a chance to escape the city and crowds - to do things I enjoy like canoe, fish, rustic camping and spending time with valued friends and family members.

I've never felt that my life was in danger. I've never had to worry about finding/gathering/hunting food. With all the modern gear and clothing I've never been worried about dying from exposure. I've never worried about getting lost.

I don't berate anyone for thinking differently than me on this issue. Nonetheless, to me portage trails, toilets, designated campsites, fire grates do not qualify this as a wilderness.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

snakecharmer

06/21/2012 02:36PM

The Boundary Waters is a "reclaimed wilderness". It's a wilderness with an asterisk :)

"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not fish they are after"
~ Henry David Thoreau

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

An Austrian Econ

Guest Paddler

06/21/2012 03:30PM

quote AndySG: "AT&T will make more money from the larger tower since they plan to rent tower space to other communication providers. Its called capitalism. I like capitalism but it does have an ugly side known as "greed.""

there is no ugly side to greed when you see it from the proper angle. greed is why people price shop, or choose items that last longer, which puts pressure on companies to improve durability, or find a cheaper way to do things. This is a quintessential requirement in human evolution.

the only thing ugly about greed is when people get jealous and get angry that wealthy people are prone to being greedy too.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tremolo

06/21/2012 04:34PM

quote An Austrian Econ: "quote AndySG: "AT&T will make more money from the larger tower since they plan to rent tower space to other communication providers. Its called capitalism. I like capitalism but it does have an ugly side known as "greed.""

there is no ugly side to greed when you see it from the proper angle. greed is why people price shop, or choose items that last longer, which puts pressure on companies to improve durability, or find a cheaper way to do things. This is a quintessential requirement in human evolution.

the only thing ugly about greed is when people get jealous and get angry that wealthy people are prone to being greedy too."

greed is ugly for many many reasons. One, it puts profits before human dignity-- sometimes. It is the driving force of arrogance which in turn is a driving force in those who seek power. Those people become our politicians. They are beholden to their sponsors, which are almost all corporations. Corporations are wealthy people using wealth to buy myriad strategic ways to market "free enterprise" to the masses. Consumerism requires so much time that it deprives consumers of the time to reflect and assess their values.

greed is ugly because it blinds us to the facts around us-- the weather extremes, the shrinking middle class, wars that sap our budget of trillions, children measured by how well they fill in bubbles rather than how well they interact, think, work, collaborate, work for the cause of truth and goodness.

Your proper angle-- what do you mean by proper? The word proper reminds me of a lesson delivered by a school marm with NO world experience.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

The Great Outdoors

06/21/2012 08:44PM

I assume looking at greed from the proper angle means EVERYONE has some form of it!!
Greed then converts to jealously, and then to anger.
Think about it, absolutely no one is free from some form of greed and/or jealously.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Beaverjack

06/21/2012 09:28PM

quote LuvMyBell: "...to me portage trails, toilets, designated campsites, fire grates do not qualify this as a wilderness.

"

And then there's crowds, reservations, fees, rangers, and a myraid of regulations that smell of parkdom, not savagery.

Tony

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

wildernessfan2

06/21/2012 09:45PM

There is nothing pure or pristine about the well used BWCA and that's simple fact. If those towers make life safer for the local people I say build them. If they help save a life they are worth it. Change you camera angle and or view and get over it imo.

Freshwater is delicious! Saltwater not so much..

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

tremolo

06/22/2012 10:52AM

quote wildernessfan2: "There is nothing pure or pristine about the well used BWCA and that's simple fact. If those towers make life safer for the local people I say build them. If they help save a life they are worth it. Change you camera angle and or view and get over it imo. "

Things that make you safer-- pfds, not smoking, seatbelts... eating healthy food.

If you never use the campsite, it's pristine. The human visitor is only one lens through which to define wilderness. The ecosystem, studied by scientists and naturalists from all over the world for its diversity and symbiosis, its landscape and geology, its lakes and rivers... houses a multitude of species. They live there, unlike the homo homo sapiens who are asked to leave no trace out of respect to the wilderness.

Camera angle? If that's your lens, it's pretty narrow, but how you frame the issue reflects much more about your perspective than adds to the conceptualization of wilderness. Very limited.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/22/2012 11:07AM

What purpose does a wilderness serve if people don't explore it and marvel in it's beauty? Just a waste of unknown space I'd say.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

PINETREE

06/22/2012 02:30PM

Listening to the news today and NASA has on one of there satelites a transmiter that is only on 12 watts and transmitts everyday over 2 billion miles. I think the cell phone is primitive to that and it needs no towers.

Sig: All of us our Dreamers. Dreams are what started everything. We our asking ourselves a great question? all of us interested in wilderness preservation are asking...What kind of world do we want.?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

burntsider

06/22/2012 02:45PM

quote PINETREE: "Listening to the news today and NASA has on one of there satelites a transmiter that is only on 12 watts and transmitts everyday over 2 billion miles. I think the cell phone is primitive to that and it needs no towers."

Not sure I follow exactly, but I think towers will be obsolete in a few years. Better, cheaper technology will evolve due to competition among the providers as they seek better returns for their investors like you and me. The towers will come down.

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

LuvMyBell

06/22/2012 03:26PM

Line of sight - no obstructions in it's path is the only way satellites can get away with that.

Maybe if we chop all the trees down and bulldoze or blast all the hills level, a cell tower won't be needed to provide local residents, outside the BWCA, with the same phone service that the rest of us take for granted. hmmmmmm.

Paddle Faster....I hear banjo music

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

PINETREE

06/22/2012 04:16PM

quote burntsider: "quote PINETREE: "Listening to the news today and NASA has on one of there satelites a transmiter that is only on 12 watts and transmitts everyday over 2 billion miles. I think the cell phone is primitive to that and it needs no towers."

Not sure I follow exactly, but I think towers will be obsolete in a few years. Better, cheaper technology will evolve due to competition among the providers as they seek better returns for their investors like you and me. The towers will come down. "

Just the technology and at such a low power grid used. Amazing

Sig: All of us our Dreamers. Dreams are what started everything. We our asking ourselves a great question? all of us interested in wilderness preservation are asking...What kind of world do we want.?

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

Beaverjack

06/22/2012 07:05PM

Just like humans. They go on and on about living in a special place then do everything they can to make it just like everywhere else. Then they play the pity card so others will play along with their hypocisy.

Tony

Reply Reply with Quote Print Top Bottom Previous Next

BWCA Messageboard