by TwilightMountaineer » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:00 pm
A representative of CatskillMountaineer wrote to me that, "Our primary issue is that it should blend in with the mountainside.", and suggested that the tower should get the fake tree treatment.
But Dave’s post which started this thread goes well beyond that. It contains both scare arguments, that the tower’s visual impact will be far greater than in actuality, and soothing arguments that it isn’t really needed since use of alternative technologies (communicating to satellites) is more widespread than it is or that cell phones which use FM to talk to a few, widely spaced towers are just around the corner.
The fact is that this tower is vitally needed now to provide cell coverage in Kaaterskill Clove, ascended by a dangerous, heavily traveled road, and its side Canyon containing Kaaterkill Falls, which is the site of heavy hiking activity, often undertaken by, …, well, not by mountaineers. Not only do cell phones not work there, but emergency communications, especially back to base, do not work well there, either.
The proposed tower would carry both cell base station panels and Greene County emergency services antennas.
A TOWER THAT "LOOKS LIKE" A TREE
Let me say first of all that, personally, I do think there may be a case for a "Franken Fir" approach, compared to a bare tower top which would look something like the large thumbnail associated with this thread on the main CatskillMountaineer website. A tower top that pokes up looking like the top third of the fake tree that accompanies the main body of the thread maybe can be more easily missed in a casual glance.
But, the advantages aren’t entirely on that side:
1) The fake tree treatment inevitably makes the tower top wider and fuller, and thus more visible, if you look right at it.
2) The tower will stick up above the surrounding tree canopy by only 35 to 45 feet, not the 90 feet asserted.
3) There are scattered trees in the area (Spruces, I believe) which also stick up by several tens of feet, so there will not be just the one “sore thumb”.
4) Those sticking up real trees, however, look very different from the standard fake tree tower tops, having a few very broad horizontal limbs, rather than a lot of vertical ones.
5) Lastly, such fake tree treatments are more expensive than bare towers, possibly enough so to kill the deal.
OTHER TOWER APPEARANCE ISSUES
Surely somewhere among the coatings on any tower there is an anticorrosive layer. If it literally is galvanicly applied zinc, all I can say is either the overlayers are very long lasting or there is periodic repainting, because I have never seen a bright, shiny cell tower.
So, it is hard to worry that this tower will be the first.
TREE HEIGHT
To be blunt, there is no support for the assertion that the trees at the site are only 40 feet high, not in Dave’s post or in a follow-up email from another representative of the site. Both representatives ignored or declined my offer of a visit to the site.
The tower company says 80’. I was skeptical of that and so I went to the site and carefully triangulated the heights of two representative trees (not extra tall ones), using a homemade theodolite. I got 90’, I would guess +/- 5’, possibly +/- 10’. In the email the CatskillMountaineer representative asserted that most species in the Catskills top out at 60 to 80 feet, tacitly abandoning the 40’ assertion.
Quite simply, the trees at the proposed site are 80’ at a minimum, must likely 90’, and possibly higher.
Therefore, the tower stick up height, above the surface formed by the crowns of its immediately surrounding trees, will most likely be 35’, or maybe as much as 45’, but not 90’. (Note the tower is essentially 125’ high. The remaining 4’ of its total 129’ will be a very slender lightning rod.)
Let’s make no mistake though: Because the tower will be on a North facing slope, high above the South side of Kaaterskill Clove (at about 2300’), more than just the stick up part of the top will be visible from some vantage points on the other side which can look into the small cleared area surrounding the tower. But, from such positions one will also see houses, and maybe other buildings, roads, other utility poles, etc.
The Catskills just aren't part of the great North woods, and haven't been for a couple of centuries.
Where the 40’ figure, used to support a claim that the tower will stick up 90’ above surrounding trees, came from apparently will remain a mystery. Why that assertion was put in front of readers of CatskillMountaineer I leave for them to decide.
TECHNOLOGY WILL MAKE THE TOWER OBSOLETE ...
Could that happen? Not only maybe, but certainly it will, sooner or later.
Will it be via some form of FM cell phone that only needs towers every 50 miles? I doubt it. While you are in Kaaterskill Clove, listen to how bad your favorite Albany FM broadcast station, probably about a 1000 watt signal coming from a tower about 40 miles away, sounds. Given that, I can’t see how a 1 watt handheld can be heard by even a high tower that far away.
"Most hiking parties have at least one SPOT or PLB.", says the CatskillMountaineer
Then how come NOT A SINGLE ONE of the 28 incidents (often minor) in the Catskills in 2017, as reported on that website, involved one? Most of the writeups clearly showed that a cell phone was used to get help.
"The groups most likely to need help are inexperienced hikers and very experienced hikers."
That sounds right, and it may well be that the few very experienced ones, when, rarely, they get into trouble, will be able to pull out such a device and signal to a satellite.
Should the inexperienced also carry a satellite transponder?
It is easy to say "sure", but for that one trip a year, maybe undertaken on the fly? A trip for which a cheap backpack and sleeping bag, together costing under $100, was a big investment?
The get out of the city and get far enough from the road to get into trouble once a year types will never carry PLBs or SPOTs. Why should they? They have a cell phone in their pocket and those work "everywhere", and always, right?
Yes, it may be naive for them to think that, but should they die for that mistake? Is it really reasonable to expect 76 year old Delaware County hunters to carry PLBs?
And, what about those who never venture into the woods? Surely it is not the position of Catskills mountaineers, generally, that every resident of The Mountaintop (the area from Haines Falls west), needs to have a satellite device in their car for when they might need to drive up or down the Clove during an ice storm.
... LEAVING THE TOWER A RUSTING HULK
This is a valid concern.
The first two lines of defense are clear: a) The tower company is contractually required to remove the equipment soon after it stops paying rent. b) It also must post a bond, running to the town of Hunter, before construction begins, to guarantee that performance.
But a CatskillMountaineer representative warns that bonding companies, if faced with waves of such claims, may balk at paying. Speaking as someone with 25 years of experience in the property casualty insurance industry, in such a scenario, some insurers might try to fight the first few claims, but, c) they will lose and eventually paying will be cheaper than fighting, and then having to pay.
d) If it were to become clear that no funds were available to remove an abandoned tower, a few pounds of dynamite would drop the tower below tree level and make available a considerable amount of valuable scrap.
THE SIGNALS (CELL AND EMERGENCY SERVICES) WON'T GET INTO THE SIDE CLOVE TO KAATERSKILL FALLS
This is also, I am sorry, just plain wrong.
The tower will be placed right across the main clove from the side clove, close to being on the side clove's axis.
WRAP UP
You can't really understand how ill-conceived opposition to this particular tower is until you have sat on my porch, once again listening to a chopper hover in the Clove on a summer weekend afternoon, and wondered whether this time they will get to the victim soon enough.
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
TwilightMountaineer
(Note: I am a member of the Twilight Park community, but write strictly in a personal capacity.)