This week the city council deliberated over a cell tower in the Riverside neighborhood of Duluth. I regret not being at the meeting. I heard that the AT&T representative mentioned "Ms. Boedigheimer" and the issues about migration I have raised. I love raising awareness! I anxiously await the opportunity to listen to this meeting when Pactv gets the DVD to the library. Evidently there was a bit of discussion by some councilors about the issue of cell towers "biting them in the back in the future." There was even a discussion about tabling ALL tower requests until the new zoning code is written! WOW...now we are moving in the right direction!
The DNT published this account of the meeting:
Published April 12 2010: Cell tower approved for Riverside neighborhood By: Brandon Stahl , Duluth News Tribune
"Councilor Jay Fosle knocked on doors and determined that residents of the Riverside neighborhood wouldn't mind a nearly 180-foot-tall cell tower being put in their community. And so the Duluth City Council approved giving AT&T the authority tonight to build a tower along the St. Louis River to provide what the company said will be a better cell phone connection for residents. Among the objections in the past to cell towers along the river or Lake Superior is the threat to birds. But Fosle said he spoke to a bird expert who said a greater threat to birds is picture windows."
Yikes! I was pretty miffed at this old and lazy argument. I asked Anna Peterson, a PHd candidate whose research involves the impacts of wind towers, cell towers, and tall structures on migrating birds in our area, what she had to say about this: "Yes, windows are a huge threat to migrating birds. The issue with towers or any structure is cumulative affect (windows, towers, turbines, and cats). In my opinion, it is foolish to separate one mortality factor from another (ie. towers versus windows). It's like saying what's one more forest clearcut? Or 100 more SUVs on the road? The argument is not valid. What's one more tower? You can imagine the impact when every city has that attitude because "windows" are more of a threat.
And I'm quite sure the ATT's bird expert shares that view."
I was really curious to know WHO this "bird expert" was that had emailed the councilor with such a poor argument. I had heard it was someone who had 28 years at Hawk Ridge, and had counted birds at the Lakewood Pumping Station. It sounds like someone who would have some credentials, probably a scientist, maybe an ornithologist? But no! I find out that it is a local bird guide, someone who seems to have NO actual professional credentials. It's nice that you are a local bird guide, but be called an "expert" and represented as such in an official proceeding is just wrong. His website lists his qualifications as having led birding trips and groups. Um, can you really say that he is qualified to be considered an "expert" who we use as a source of "expert" opinion to make decisions that might affect the entire City? Most people who are "experts" have some professional credential to back it up. Even a college degree in biology would help! It might help to verify sources and arguments proffered before repeating them in public. Once you've said it in a public forum, you own it.
Anna's argument is very clear. There are a great number of things that place pressure on birds. And the accumulation of further stresses is only going to make the situation worse. Several groups are working to raise awareness of the window issue and technology is available to make windows less likely to kill. There are campaigns to turn lights off in skyscrapers to minimize risk. The Audubon and American Bird Conservancy have invested countless hours and resources to raising awareness of the cat predation issue. People are not going to give up their beloved pets, but they can become aware of the issue and act accordingly. The same holds true for communication towers and windmills. As we become aware that they are another stress on bird population we have a similar obligation to be mindful in their placement. I am not opposed to all towers. I just want to see that they are not rammed down the throat of communities. Government bodies must act on a community's actual PROVABLE need for a tower. They must respect our natural resources, which belong to all citizens (and yes, wildlife IS a natural resource.) Our leaders should only approve new towers after it is PROVEN that a cell carrier needs it to provide a service that will fill a PROVEN COMMUNITY need. New towers should always be a last resort, after all, what they really need is an array of antennas. Carriers should be required to explore all other configurations (distributed antenna systems, on power poles, locating on tall structures, collocation on other towers, etc.)before building new towers.
No one knows exactly why birds are killed at towers, there are factors that are being studied, and we know that there is likely a link to lighting, weather, migration, and guy wires. Any single one of these factors, or a combination of them can cause problems for birds flying near a tower. Anna Peterson has stated that there will likely be kills at this Riverside tower. It is a high migration area in the springtime. But, it will take a combination of things, low ceiling, poor visibility, bad weather, high numbers of birds flying low. So, it may not happen a lot, but it probably will happen, hopefully not often, hopefully not ever. But if it does, I hope the tour guide regrets that he played a part in the approval of a tower that caused those deaths.
No comments:
Post a Comment