<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">To me the National Parks are a compromise we need to make as lovers of the wild in order to enlist our future allies in political battles to save our long trails and wild areas. As we are a democracy, and long distance hikers are a distinct minority, we need people from cities, who know nothing of nature but what's on tv, to support environmental issues. And the front country of national parks is designed to allow people who know nothing of the wild to enjoy it safely. </font></div></blockquote><br><div>The boardwalks, the signs full of rules, the crowds, and so many other things at the signature tourist sites certainly intrude on the wildness that we superhikers love so much. But they are necessary to save the tourist from the park and to save the park from the tourists. </div><div><br></div><div>Once you've walked a quarter mile from the parking lots and from the main attractions, the litter thins out, the talkers are quieter, and the rudeness in general lessens. I guess some people get more respectful, but mostly I think the rudest people are too lazy to walk 5 minutes. </div><div><br></div><div>So I think that cell phone yackers won't take over the whole of the back country. </div><div><br></div><div>Also, in mountainous terrain, a tower that covers a popular area won't have line of sight for other nearby valleys. </div><div><br></div><div>So, in conclusion, if a few cell towers in the most popular areas of the parks draw in potential new wilderness afficcionados, maybe on the balance it's a good thing. </div><div><br></div><div>My 2 cents worth</div><div><br></div></body></html>