<< Back 5/19/04 The Naturalist's Corner By Don Hendershot While doing a little research for last week’s column regarding Cingular Wireless’ proposal to install cell towers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, I ran across some quotes from Sierra Club past president Ted Snyder. To paraphrase, Snyder asked why people needed cell phones in the national park and how had we managed to do without them until now. Other hikers and conservationists opined that the very reason to have wild places was to get away from our civilized accouterments. The cell tower story came right on the heels of Smoky Mountain News’ stories regarding the loss of forests and sustainable forestry in the Waynesville watershed. Stories that are commingled and conjoined with the Road to Nowhere saga; air pollution in the region; water quality and ultimately all the natural resource and environmental challenges we are facing around the globe. Too many people, be they dyed-in-the-wool capitalists who see natural resources as commodities, or “warrior” eco-freaks who see the natural world as Nirvana suffering under human duress, throw up their hands and say “it’s too much, it’s too big, it’s too complicated – let me just deal with what affects me in the way I think is best for me.” What we need is a door to another paradigm. It is time to come up with another philosophy – another kind of intelligence to deal with environmental issues. Let’s get back to Snyder’s statements regarding cell towers. Now, I know Ted and I respect him and I am glad he is out there and has the will and desire to work on behalf of the environment. But I’m not exactly sure what Ted was trying to say regarding the cell towers. Sure people got along just fine 200 years ago without cell phones. They got along without automobiles, without refrigerators, without electricity and without computers. And there is no denying that cell phones are useful little devices and I don’t see people tossing them anymore than they would their refrigerator or automobile or computer. So I’m not sure exactly what Ted was trying to say. Perhaps it was more along the line of, hey if you compare and contrasts the benefits of having enhanced cell phone capabilities with the environmental degradations (viewshed impairments, bird kills, etc) of placing three more tall towers in the park, the more environmentally sensitive choice would be not to build the towers. As for the argument that people go to the park to get away from cell phones, that could be true for whomever said it. But national parks belong to all of us. Should we not, all, have equal access? What about someone who is on call? They have the weekend free with one stipulation — they have to be in phone contact. How would that person feel about enhanced cell phone reception in the park? What is missing in both of these instances is a lack of real communication. We know that someone wants cell towers in the park and that some people don’t. And, already, instead of trying to establish what the issue is – enhanced reception vs. the environmental costs of cell tower construction – we are busy trying to choose sides and gather momentum and support for our position. A better way to settle the question would be to seriously consider what are the socioeconomic and environmental benefits vs. costs to constructing three cell towers in the park. Would enhanced communication create a higher level of services? Would it improve or degrade visitors’ wilderness experience? What about migratory bird kill? Are there other options, such as using existing structures? When word about the possibility of selective logging in the Waynesville watershed got out, the immediate hue and cry from local conservationists was “no logging.” Immediately, we have an “us vs. them” situation. That’s the old paradigm. That’s bottleneck and logjam and litigation. That’s not new intelligence. I am not pro-logging. I am definitely not pro clearcut or slash and burn or high-grade harvesting, leaving the poorest specimen behind. But neither am I automatically anti-logging. And I know the team of scientists and professionals who are positing a plan for the Waynesville watershed. Would it not be more prudent to hear the plan, analyze it and if there appears to be flawed science, question the plan? For years, environmentalists and ecologists have been begging foresters and politicians to listen to them — to hear their fears and study their science. And if they see flaws in the science, question it. Here in Western North Carolina we have a group of foresters and scientists who are not only willing to listen but ready to bring their own plans to the table for scrutiny. Could this be the door to a new paradigm? Stay tuned for more next week. (Don Hendershot can be reached a ddihen@juno.com)