A lake reflects a cloudy sky in Grand Teton National Park, Wyo. (monikasoltysik / flickr) http://www.flickr.com/photos/monikasoltysik/ / CC BY 2.0
I’m going to start this follow up to yesterday’s “Watching for the backcountry eye” by temporarily leaving the American wilderness and driving to a small urban area.
Lancaster city in the Pennsylvania county where Compass Points makes its base camp has a population of about 55,000 people, a thriving arts community, vibrant downtown, old neighborhoods and struggles with violent crime, including a spike in gun infractions. Lancaster city – so small it’s seemingly off the radar when it comes to urban trends that affect the likes of Chicago, L.A. or New York – is the most watched city in America. By that, we mean there are more cameras per capita monitoring public safety; 165 cameras in total watching the streets.
A non-profit agency operates the cameras, and they turn video surveillance over to law enforcement officials whenever one of their tiny, acorn-shaped cameras catch a criminal act. From the L.A. Times:
On a recent afternoon, camera operator Doug Winglewich sat at a console and watched several dozen incoming video feeds plus a computer linked to the county 911 dispatcher. The cameras have no audio, so he works in silence.
Each time police logged a new 911 call, he punched up the camera closest to the address, and pushed a joystick to maneuver in for a closer look.
A license plate could be read a block away, and a face even farther could be identified. After four years in the job, Winglewich said, he “can pretty much tell right away if someone’s up to no good.”
He called up another feed and focused on a woman sitting on the curb. “You get to know people’s faces,” he said. “She’s been arrested for prostitution.”
Moments later, he called police when he spotted a man drinking beer in trouble-prone Farnum Park. Two police officers soon appeared on the screen, and as the camera watched, issued the man a ticket for violating a local ordinance.
“Lots of times, the police find outstanding warrants and the guy winds up in jail,” said Winglewich, 49, who works from a wheelchair on account of a spinal injury.
As the county district attorney notes in the article, Lancaster city despite having a high poverty rate isn’t making national headlines for an outrageous rate of crime.
The Yellowstone River winds through Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. (ddebold / flickr) http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddebold/ / CC BY 2.0
The article notes that a final verdict on the effectiveness of such cameras remains elusive, but as we roll toward the future, this discussion about backcountry surveillance in U.S. national parks will be had.
We discussed yesterday that Yellowstone’s recently adopted comprehensive plan about technology use raises the possibility of having web cams in the backcountry for safety purposes. It’s important to note that the National Park Service has not approved the use of such cameras. There appears to be no concrete plans to do so at this time.
But this discussion is inevitable, especially with the coming Feb. 22 introduction of a new law to allow loaded firearms in national parks.
National Parks Traveler responded this morning to the Compass Points story, raising some of the same questions CP did about this issue. Kurt Repanshek writes:
Is it really necessary? Under the backcountry permitting process in Yellowstone, rangers know exactly where you’re supposed to be ending every day and starting the next through assigned campsites. Every time I’ve traveled in the park’s backcountry I’ve encountered a backcountry ranger just checking in to see that I am who I’m supposed to be and camped where I’m supposed to camp with the requisite paperwork.
So why the need for webcams to “address safety concerns”? Has poaching, resource damage, or backcountry crime become such high-profile matters that the National Park Service feels the best way to respond to them and combat them is through the use of webcams? And really, if you’re heading into the backcountry for nefarious reasons and not merely to enjoy the setting and experience, how likely is it that you’re going to travel well-established trails that might one day be lined with webcams?
All of them fair questions. There are two answers to consider.
Giant Sequoia trunks in Sequoia National Park. (miguelvieira / flickr) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguelvieira/ / CC BY 2.0
First, the moment one of those rangers or a backpacker or a horse rider becomes a victim of a crime committed by someone wielding a gun, and that crime either could have or was captured by a camera, I predict there will be an outcry for greater safety measures. This is the stuff of which lawsuits are made. If the National Park Service has the capabilities of implementing safety measures to deter such crime or in the event of such crime can be used as evidence for the purpose of justice, then you can bet lawyers will get involved.
And they do have the capabilities. There was a backcountry camera in Shenandoah National Park, Va., at its one of its highest peak (Stony Man) monitoring peregrine falcons.
Second, consider the evolvement of such camera technology. Until recently, surveillance cameras were burdensome, bulky and required electricity hook ups. You couldn’t have a network of surveillance cameras in the backcountry because of the logistical nightmare it would cause.
Today, however, these cameras are considerably smaller. The cameras in Lancaster city hang like black-and-white acorns off a pole, and you have to look for them or you wouldn’t even realize they’re present. And those cameras are capable of zooming in with great detail a distance of hundreds of yards, which means not only trails but off-trail territory can be monitored. And they could run either on sophisticated battery power or with solar energy.
I do believe National Park Service and Yellowstone officials when they say they have no current plans to implement such technology in the backcountry. But with the new gun law and with disturbing trends like Mexican drug cartels growing marijuana in Sequoia National Forest, Ca., we’re going to have this discussion about safety measures in the American wilderness.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
David,
Lawsuits will happen regardless if there is a camera to capture what happens. Here in the United States we are a particularly litigious society. Too much, in fact. It seems the first answer folks have when something goes wrong is to call a lawyer. We shouldn’t let fears of lawsuits drive a decision to install webcams in Yellowstone’s backcountry, or the backcountry of any other national park.
And really, take a look at the existing webcams in Yellowstone. Outside of the one that is focused on Old Faithful, how much clarity is there? And even with that Old Faithful webcam, how much can you make out of the faces of the folks on the geyser’s apron?
Roughly 90 percent of Yellowstone’s 2.2 million acres is de facto wilderness. How many webcams would be needed to truly provide some measure of safety, if that’s the real purpose behind this idea. How many eyes would be needed to watch those feeds? And if a webcam is a good idea for safety’s sake, isn’t a road a better one?
No, I think this is a poor idea, one that’s not necessary. I’ll detail my thoughts more as I continue to follow this on the Traveler. Thanks much for raising the matter.
My goal is to certainly raise the issue for discussion. And thanks for contributing your point of view.
Thing is, as I point out in my Backpacker Magazine blurb, this whole discussion gained new traction when the Old Faithful cam caught troublemakers urinating into the geyser. Then I took a look at the Y-stone comprehensive plan and found the section you highlighted. With trends the way they’re going as I mentioned in the CP article above, and the ongoing national debate about privacy, until Jarvis or Salazar or park administrators definitively say they won’t put web cams in the backcountry for the purpose of safety, then the possibility remains open.
I wish we were less litigious, too.
There’s no correlation between conceal and carry, and webcams…let’s not grasp at those straws just for the sake of it. I understand you are worried about a backpacker or ranger getting killed by a gun, however the CC laws should really have no bearing on this concern. Folks that have reason to murder someone in Yellowstone’s backcountry will not worry about whether or not they are legally allowed to carry a gun. We’re talking about people willing to commit murder, here…what’s a gun violation to them?
I don’t think the web cam discussion should center around the CCW decisions, whatsoever. There are many other valid reasons given by the Park Service. Resource management, wildlife, wildfire, reduce personnel costs, emergency response…and of course catching the actual criminals.
Finally, while I agree that the the nature and amount of lawsuits in our country is outrageous, and time has proven again and again that anything is possible, at first glance, simply because the Park Service should not be held liable for many of these circumstances. The very reason you escape to the backcountry is to escape everything. The concept of wilderness does not include (even with cameras) INSTANTLY FLY BY HELICOPTER TO SAVE MY LIFE WHEN THE SECURITY GUARD SEES A MAN WITH MURDER IN HIS EYES WALKING TOWARDS ME, IN HIS CAMERA. Obviously, I exaggerate. But the definition of negligence has to meet four separate components, including a duty to act. I don’t see people fighting for the NPS to watch your every move in order to help you out of those tight spots.
I’m not sure how I feel about the cameras in the BC. But if they are there, I would hope that they would be there to watch for wildfires, poaching, marijuana operations (probably not in Yellowstone), wildlife studies, etc, and NOT to come flying in with a bottle of water if they watch me for three days straight and see that I haven’t had a drink of water in 24 hours.
Hope this all makes sense. I’m in class, and hope I’m not too scatterbrained due to focusing on too many things.