It isn’t as simple as putting up a tower. There is additional infrastructure that would be required as well, roads, power, etc. All of that takes away from the wonder and beauty of the areas. Sure having better reception would be nice for emergencies, but that is why you aren’t supposed to be in the wilderness by yourself and why it has always been a good idea to let people know where you are going to be and when you’ll be back. Too many people don’t do enough planning before heading into the back woods.
Wild places should be kept wild. Our souls need a place to get away from manmade clutter of urban life. With increased communications infrastructions, the temptation will be too great to text, play with your newest cell phone app, etc. on the trail. There’s a powerful lesson to be had in nature by just being still and alone.
Well, looks like I’m in the minority voting group, but I think it great to have cell phone reception in the backcountry for emergencies and to find lost group members. I’ve been out on powder days backcountry snowboarding and got split off from the group. I was happy to be able to let my worried crew know I was OK and that I would meet them at the bottom of the run. I think if they do put up cell phone towers and try to disguise them as trees, they should make a point to choose fake trees that match the other trees in the forest. Truckee has a light ‘blue spruce’ (cell phone ‘tree’) that stands out like a sore thumb in the forest of dark green sugar pines behind Safeway.
The towers are unsightly, but can be covered with overgrowth of vines, etc. to hide them. The benefits are enormous. The number of rescues having to be mounted would be reduced dramatically. Remember the rescue heroes have to risk their lives, and despite amazing feats, are not always successful. At least the amount of pain and suffering ( as seen on the survival documentaries ) would be reduced.
One could say that more unfit people would go to the wilderness with the false sense of security of having a cell phone. However, there are plenty of those folks right now. No doubt there are some places on the planet where towers cannot be stationed no matter how free the rules are about building them. There will still be places of solitude with only God and you.
I am a bit uncoordinated with posting comments, so I have to use this space to submit a more general comment. I am so impressed with ASJ after reading this newsletter.
The depth of reporting, useful information, variety of subjects and professionalism is
not to be found anywhere else that I have found online or off.
Keep up the great work and I hope all the folks who are searching for this data have found, or will find soon, your magazine.
Freddy usually posts a warning at trailheads: It’s wilderness, enter at your own risk. That’s the idea. Sure, if I’m ever face down in the dust I might not lay there too long before wishing I could call someone. No cell towers. No fly overs. No morons taking big risks because they can call for help. Let Darwin do its work. People who aren’t comfy with severing the link to urban insanity can buy a Spot or a sat phone or a beacon. Not to mention, who’d pay for the infrastructure? Shouldn’t be the taxpayers. With the pressure to squeeze user fees for sleeping on the dirt, there should be no incentive to make it cost more. Most importantly, though, if I want to go to wilderness and the maggots get me, that should be a choice. I don’t want to bust my tail to get out there to camp under a cell tower and be kept awake by people chattering away on their phones. If you have to call home to mommy, you’re in the wrong place.
No, I go to the wilderness because I can get away from the cell phones. The cell towers will also give people a feeling that they don’t have to prepare because they can just call and be saved. It is far better to have to be prepared than to think you can be saved by a phone call. Rescue operations in the wilderness are a serious business and often can put the resuer at risk. Where the cell phone service is available the number of calls for rescue goes up not down. People call to be rescued for trivial problems that they should be able to solve on their own. Keep the wilderness wild and be prepared by being trained or traveling with someone who is experienced.
My mom & her twin sister rode the “Ski Train” from Oakland to Soda Springs on one day trips in the late 1930’s, there was a shuttle that took them to the only ski area, Auburn Ski Club, this was a one long day, but they loved the adventure. Still talks about it, when she asks me if it has snowed in Truckee and her long term memorey kicks in. I believe an attempt was made a while back to do a ski train, no go, what needs to be done is get the North Shore & Truckee Resorts to package a plus or minus 3 day deal w/ travel, lodging & lift pass, fill one ot two train cars and hook up w/ Amtrack, they could drop the cars off in Truckee or Reno on the up hill ride, hook em up on the return run, Amtrack runs through here twice a day, get the interest and then see if the costs for a full train, that can turn around in Truckee, would be feasible. The current train depot in Truckee can not handel a full train now, or the needed shuttle busses. The train could also be used to carry non skiers into Reno w/ a hotel package. Focus on the holliday periods, get cars off the roads. Amtrack passes through Truckee twicw a day
It’s hard, I like cellphone access for safety reasons only. But I also like not having access to a cellphone so that I can focus on what’s around me and enjoying the opportunity to be outside! Hearing a cellphone ring when I hike/bike/climb/kayak is annoying.
No. Not until the last mile problem is figured out. The question should really be: Should passenger train service be re-established… In the Warren Miller era, the train would stop near Sugar Bowl and a shuttle would take riders to the lodge at the base of the mountain. That was fine when there was one ski hill on the North Shore. Now with all the options, and other activities (nordic skiing, backcountry skiing, cycling, kayaking etc) people have a broader list of destinations and activities they want to hit on a trip and probably a greater assortment of gear. Accommodations are also distributed over a larger area with many people owning or renting vacation homes and few staying in lodges. My proposal – car rental in Truckee or Reno. Get the people and their gear over the pass and, as long as they reserve in advance, a rental agency could have a car waiting for them at the train station. I’m sure that the agency’s in Reno have surplus inventory when there aren’t any conventions in town. As for who pays for it – that’s a tricky one. All the rail service in the world is government subsidized. I think BART only takes in 60% of the revenue needed to run from fares and that has predictable and constant traffic. Of course, the highways, particularly highway 80, costs the people an enormous amount to keep open between snow control, repair work and accident clearing on a snowy Friday night and that’s not going away even if trains start running. Unfortunately, I don’t have a good answer for the funding source. Maybe once gas hits $5/gallon, non-subsidized rail will start to make sense.
It isn’t as simple as putting up a tower. There is additional infrastructure that would be required as well, roads, power, etc. All of that takes away from the wonder and beauty of the areas. Sure having better reception would be nice for emergencies, but that is why you aren’t supposed to be in the wilderness by yourself and why it has always been a good idea to let people know where you are going to be and when you’ll be back. Too many people don’t do enough planning before heading into the back woods.
Wild places should be kept wild. Our souls need a place to get away from manmade clutter of urban life. With increased communications infrastructions, the temptation will be too great to text, play with your newest cell phone app, etc. on the trail. There’s a powerful lesson to be had in nature by just being still and alone.
Well, looks like I’m in the minority voting group, but I think it great to have cell phone reception in the backcountry for emergencies and to find lost group members. I’ve been out on powder days backcountry snowboarding and got split off from the group. I was happy to be able to let my worried crew know I was OK and that I would meet them at the bottom of the run. I think if they do put up cell phone towers and try to disguise them as trees, they should make a point to choose fake trees that match the other trees in the forest. Truckee has a light ‘blue spruce’ (cell phone ‘tree’) that stands out like a sore thumb in the forest of dark green sugar pines behind Safeway.
for safety sake, better reception would be welcome
The towers are unsightly, but can be covered with overgrowth of vines, etc. to hide them. The benefits are enormous. The number of rescues having to be mounted would be reduced dramatically. Remember the rescue heroes have to risk their lives, and despite amazing feats, are not always successful. At least the amount of pain and suffering ( as seen on the survival documentaries ) would be reduced.
One could say that more unfit people would go to the wilderness with the false sense of security of having a cell phone. However, there are plenty of those folks right now. No doubt there are some places on the planet where towers cannot be stationed no matter how free the rules are about building them. There will still be places of solitude with only God and you.
I am a bit uncoordinated with posting comments, so I have to use this space to submit a more general comment. I am so impressed with ASJ after reading this newsletter.
The depth of reporting, useful information, variety of subjects and professionalism is
not to be found anywhere else that I have found online or off.
Keep up the great work and I hope all the folks who are searching for this data have found, or will find soon, your magazine.
Best Regards,
Jane
Freddy usually posts a warning at trailheads: It’s wilderness, enter at your own risk. That’s the idea. Sure, if I’m ever face down in the dust I might not lay there too long before wishing I could call someone. No cell towers. No fly overs. No morons taking big risks because they can call for help. Let Darwin do its work. People who aren’t comfy with severing the link to urban insanity can buy a Spot or a sat phone or a beacon. Not to mention, who’d pay for the infrastructure? Shouldn’t be the taxpayers. With the pressure to squeeze user fees for sleeping on the dirt, there should be no incentive to make it cost more. Most importantly, though, if I want to go to wilderness and the maggots get me, that should be a choice. I don’t want to bust my tail to get out there to camp under a cell tower and be kept awake by people chattering away on their phones. If you have to call home to mommy, you’re in the wrong place.
No, I go to the wilderness because I can get away from the cell phones. The cell towers will also give people a feeling that they don’t have to prepare because they can just call and be saved. It is far better to have to be prepared than to think you can be saved by a phone call. Rescue operations in the wilderness are a serious business and often can put the resuer at risk. Where the cell phone service is available the number of calls for rescue goes up not down. People call to be rescued for trivial problems that they should be able to solve on their own. Keep the wilderness wild and be prepared by being trained or traveling with someone who is experienced.
Thanks for the opportunnity to comment.
Wilderness area is just that, areas off-limits to technology like bikes and cars and power tools. Cell phones fit in the same category as these items.
Personal beacons, (called epirbs) are an option for those who want to be found if they get lost.
My mom & her twin sister rode the “Ski Train” from Oakland to Soda Springs on one day trips in the late 1930’s, there was a shuttle that took them to the only ski area, Auburn Ski Club, this was a one long day, but they loved the adventure. Still talks about it, when she asks me if it has snowed in Truckee and her long term memorey kicks in. I believe an attempt was made a while back to do a ski train, no go, what needs to be done is get the North Shore & Truckee Resorts to package a plus or minus 3 day deal w/ travel, lodging & lift pass, fill one ot two train cars and hook up w/ Amtrack, they could drop the cars off in Truckee or Reno on the up hill ride, hook em up on the return run, Amtrack runs through here twice a day, get the interest and then see if the costs for a full train, that can turn around in Truckee, would be feasible. The current train depot in Truckee can not handel a full train now, or the needed shuttle busses. The train could also be used to carry non skiers into Reno w/ a hotel package. Focus on the holliday periods, get cars off the roads. Amtrack passes through Truckee twicw a day
It’s hard, I like cellphone access for safety reasons only. But I also like not having access to a cellphone so that I can focus on what’s around me and enjoying the opportunity to be outside! Hearing a cellphone ring when I hike/bike/climb/kayak is annoying.
RE: the train.
No. Not until the last mile problem is figured out. The question should really be: Should passenger train service be re-established… In the Warren Miller era, the train would stop near Sugar Bowl and a shuttle would take riders to the lodge at the base of the mountain. That was fine when there was one ski hill on the North Shore. Now with all the options, and other activities (nordic skiing, backcountry skiing, cycling, kayaking etc) people have a broader list of destinations and activities they want to hit on a trip and probably a greater assortment of gear. Accommodations are also distributed over a larger area with many people owning or renting vacation homes and few staying in lodges. My proposal – car rental in Truckee or Reno. Get the people and their gear over the pass and, as long as they reserve in advance, a rental agency could have a car waiting for them at the train station. I’m sure that the agency’s in Reno have surplus inventory when there aren’t any conventions in town. As for who pays for it – that’s a tricky one. All the rail service in the world is government subsidized. I think BART only takes in 60% of the revenue needed to run from fares and that has predictable and constant traffic. Of course, the highways, particularly highway 80, costs the people an enormous amount to keep open between snow control, repair work and accident clearing on a snowy Friday night and that’s not going away even if trains start running. Unfortunately, I don’t have a good answer for the funding source. Maybe once gas hits $5/gallon, non-subsidized rail will start to make sense.