Cherry Springs Dark Sky Park - Comments on FERMATA Plan
#1 by Gary Honis:
http://home.epix.net/~ghonis/Cherry%20Springs%20Plan%20Comments.html
and
http://home.epix.net/~ghonis/CherrySpringsPlanComments2.html
#2 Bob Visgaitis:
Greetings, I go to Cherry Springs
for the dark sky that if offers.
There is no other place left in Pennsylvania that a true dark
sky can be found.
If you install any lighting, even low level lighting, it will
destroy the very thing you are
trying to promote.
Light is the only thing that will turn a dark sky in to something
useless.
I think someone has made a grave mistake in all of this.
The only good light is starlight for astronomers and you run the
risk
for most of us to find other dark sky sites in PA and near by
States.
I have dark sky information posted on the internet about Cherry
Springs.
The page will take a wile to load because of the size of the photos.
Here is the link >>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/vze8isfi/cs.html
Please do not destroy Pennsylvania's last dark sky area.
Thank You,
Robert M. Visgaitis
Member of GHAAS
.............................................................
Ted, the problem is lighting.
I can't stress this enough.
Any light or lighting, even low level red lighting will degrade
the darkness of the night sky.
Any additional lighting of any kind, no matter how dim or well
designed, will be unwelcome.
This seems almost inevitable with so much developement in the
plans for Cherry Springs State Park.
Also In the CSSP plan, I noted that some type of lantern hangers
be mounted in trees for campers.
Do you have any idea what impact this will have on the natural
dark sky area of the park ?
It takes over five minutes for the human eye to open fully in
a dark environment.
This is also called becoming dark adapated by astronomers.
One look, at even a red light source will change the human eye
back to a point that
it will take a few more minutes for the eye to become dark sky
adapted again.
And what of night time photography ?
Camera film is much more photosensitive to light than the human
eye.
Any new introduced lighting at Cherry Springs State Park will
have a great impact
on night time photography of the sky.
Astronomers that use the park for photography will find that their
20 to 30 minute photo
will be laced with light pollution near the horizon in their photographs.
The photo you see below was taken for 5 minutes.
It is not a photo of the dawn meeting the night sky.
It is light pollution.
AS per my last E Mail " The only good light is starlight
".
If you have any questions please reply,
Thank You,
Robert M. Visgaitis
Member of GHAAS
................................................................................
Greetings Ted,
I am uncertain if you have been to Cherry Springs Park before.
Because of the way the park is constructed and nearly flat for
most of that area, I see no need for any path lighting.
There is a gate and a dirt road from RT-44 to the main viewing
area.
Cherry Springs does not have many trees or paths that would need
to be addressed in this issue.
I myself, and many others have walked from the main viewing area
at night to the rest room with no need for any lighting.
The entire area It is just one large flat field.
One thing I suggest is perhaps the Park can sell red film for
flashlights ( also called GEL used in band stage lighting ), or
rent or sell, red LED flashlights used by astronomers. (you can
find these items on the internet)
Another suggestion is that the Park require all visitors ( new
people to the area ) to sign a waiver to protect the park from
any legal action. I see no need for this because of the lay of
the land,,,, it is only an idea.
Below is a USGS overhead photo that I have attached.
Note : That there are not many trees from RT - 44 to the Astronomer
Viewing Area.
If you have any more questions please respond,
Best Wishes,
Bob Visgaitis
Greater Hazleton Area Astronomical Society
#3 S.W.:
Max,
After looking at the proposal
some more, I found that they propose "low
level lighting" at CSSP. This is a very bad idea, no lights
are best.
Also, about the showers. If I
recall correctly (I often don't) there are
showers planned for Lyman Run. So why build more at CSSP? This
could save
DCNR some $$$ and the Lyman Run showers would be close enough
for campers
and astronomers.
#4 - Scott Ewart:
Max,
I read through the proposal thoroughly. My initial reaction
is: That's
a lot of developement. It's admirable that someone is willing
to devote so
much money and effort to amateur astronomers.
But here are my concerns. First and foremost, ANY additional
lighting
of any kind, no matter how dim or well designed, will be unwelcome.
I can't
stress this enough. This seems almost inevitable with so much
developement.
It's nice during major events to have enough people around me
to shield me
from even the existing lights at the restrooms and the airport.
This company refers to the visitor center at McDonald Observatory
several times as a model. I've been there several times in the
past few
years, including before the new visitor center was built. Even
here, right
beneath a major scientific observatory, the lights are WAY too
bright and
numerous. They hold public star parties there regularly, but
not out front.
This wasn't the case before the new building went up.
Second, while a new restroom is a high priority, a new shower
facility
is given low priority. If you want to attract more astronomers
for more
than a couple nights, a shower should be a high priority. It
could be
across the street at the campground, but we need one we don't
have to drive
to.
Third is cost. My money is very tight right now. If in the
future,
it's going to cost even $50 or more to stay 3 or 4 nights, it
may keep me
away.
I'm simply not going to drive 4 hours to a place with a lot
of lights,
spend $50 for 2 or 3 nights, and have to put up with lots of (possibly)
non-astronomers staying in cabins along the field waking me up
early in the
morning. Developement of this scale may bring more people to
the park, but
it may also scare away the very people it's being desinged to
bring. My
advice is to procede with caution.
Scott Ewart
#7 - Nick Zallar:
Hi Max,
All of this interest in the park
has me a little worried. I think it's
great that so much attention and awareness is being thrown its
way, but on
the other hand I think that doing that kind of development at
the park
would be the first step to the end of dark-sky observing.
I used to live near Johnstown.
Our skies were great by most people's
standards. The Milky Way was plainly visible, and the Andromeda
Galaxy was
naked-eye. Yet, observing from my back yard was barely doable.
You
wouldn't be able to see galaxies that showed significant detail
at
CSSP. This wasn't due to bright skies, but porchlights and other
local
lighting. It was impossible to get dark-adapted. The proposal
for ANY
lights being added at the park should be nixed at the very onset
of
planning. This is a bad idea, in my opinion.
Scott mentioned giving showers
a high priority to attract more people. I'm
not too keen on this idea either. We've all been to Ole Bull
for
showers. Sure, it's a bit of a drive, but not too bad. Has anyone
that's
made that drive asked themselves why Ole Bull is usually
packed? Hello! Facilities!! Now, if there were showers put
in at CSSP,
how long would it take before the campground across 44 is as busy
as Ole
Bull? Campfires and burn-my-retina lanterns. Trout season.
Hunting
season. Unintended consequences.
Why does this kind of development
need to take place at CSSP? CSSP is
about observing. Not about rustic cabins or well lit parking
lots and
nature centers. Why can't this sort of thing go up at Lyman Run
or at some
other nearby state owned land? CSSP has attracted us because
it's an oasis
for thirsty astronomers. We can encourage use of the park by
promoting it
at the nearby parks.
The proposal mentioned the increase
in scope sales and the added future
demand put on the park. It's ironic that we're going to risk
the last
darksky observing in the east to "improve" it for people
looking to escape
to dark skies. Perhaps we could prepare a planetarium program
showing how
the skies there used to look.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend.
I know a lot to time, money, and
effort go into park improvements, but we need to step back and
see if we
are really improving the park.
-Nick
#6 - J.O.:
Max,
My initial impressions are:
1) It's nice to see so much attention
turned towards astronomy; and
2) There should be no external light allowed from the visitor
center and cabin area that is not completely screened from the
observing field (including interior lights shining through windows).
I'm with the group of people who set up in the portion of the field where Gary Honis does. The reason for this is it provides maximum shielding and distance from the airport and restroom lights and the headlights of Rt. 44. The cabin area could destroy this property of that portion of the field. Some suggestions:
Access to the cabins be from the road to Conrad, and that parking is in an area to the rear of the cabins.
Similarly, ingress and egress from the visitors center, if open at night, should be from the road to Conrad.
Blackout blinds on cabin windows should be installed and their nighttime use strictly enforced.
There should be no provision for outdoor campfires or for wood fireplaces in the cabins. The light from outdoor fires, and smoke from either, would be most unwelcome around optics, and can degrade sky seeing and transparency.
Vehicle access to the observing field from the cabin area or visitors center should be restricted at night.
A wooden screening fence be placed between the cabin and visitors center and the field.
My comment regarding smoke from wood fires may seem trivial, but remember that good observing conditions mean that the area weather will be dominated by high pressure, which tends to trap pollutants near the ground (high pressure weather patterns result in smog alert days in cities).
Since the darkness of CSSP is by far it's primary attraction for stargazers, it's compromise should be avoided even to the slightest degree. You and Chip have made great effort to encourage the use of the Hubble light shields on barn lights in the vicinity of the site. However, direct light from a cabin window, even if red, could degrade observing conditions far more than the unshielded barn light of a cabin 1/2 mile away.
I'm not sure what fees are envisioned for tent campers in the observing field, but I hope they're reasonable. Remember that the field is not the same as a shaded campsite with a fire ring and picnic table. Also, with gasoline prices being what they are, a high camping fee might discourage those who have to travel any distance to get there. That said, I feel a $5.00 overnight fee in addition to the fee charged for the electricity is reasonable for open field camping.
If the above comments have already been addressed, I apologize. Again, I'm going to give it a more thorough reading this week. Also, please don't take anything I've said as an attack on your ideas. I understand that revenue is the life blood of any operation, both commercial and public. BTW, did you receive my contribution to the Dark Sky Fund?
#6 - T.B.:
Chip & Max:
I finally got to see the proposal.
I think you both know that I've
supported the idea from the very beginning that
CSSP's astronomy activities needed to pay their way and that is
especially true
now that there will be a full-time staff person at CSSP. And
I also agree that
the whole park should be open to the public.
However, you also know that I've
maintained that while the genral public should
indeed have access, the astronomers who now use the park are also
part of the
general public and as such they should be allowed the quiet enjoyment
of their
hobby in the ideal conditions they have come to expect and indeed
have worked
to improve through their continuing labor on behalf of the Dark
Sky Fund.
I firmly believe that it would
be nearly impossible to place a visitors center
and camping cabins on the west side of Rt. 44 without a serious
negative impact
on the observing conditions on the main observing field. To me,
it makes no
sense to take the risk of ruining the fragile and nearly ideal
situation on the
current observing field when there is lots of space that is very
well suited to
observing on the east side of Rt. 44. This is especially true
when the
addition of well placed, well designed and properly lit visitors
center and
camping cabins on the east side of Rt. 44 would actually drastically
improve
the already acceptable observing conditions in that part of the
park. This
would further benefit everyone by increasing, rather than decreasing,
the area
of the park with excellent observing conditions, thus allowing
more people to
stargaze at the park. Placing the new development on the east
side of Rt. 44
would also ensure that there would be no disruption of the existing
activities
on the west side of Rt. 44 during the construction of these new
facilities or
after they are put into service. A further advantage to putting
all the new
facilities on the east side of Rt.44 would be that if the Cherry
Springs
Airport property is able to be aquired by the park this large
tract and the new
buildings would be ideally situated.
Obviously all of the this development
comes at a cost and so some sort of
user-fee fees were inevitable. With the addition of these new
facilities there
will be in essense four levels of park useage: 1) day or night
visitors not
camping in the park but attending programs 2) regular campers
using the
existing full-service but still primitive facilities 3) stargazers
camping out
on the observing field with or without electricity service for
telescopes and/or
computers 4) campers using the camping cabins. No one of these
groups should
be made to shoulder the whole burden, but neither should any use
the park
without paying. Here is the fee schedule I would suggest for
the levels listed
above: 1) a small user fee 2) the normal state park primitive
camping rate 3)
a reduced daily rate from the normal camping rate or a season
pass similar that
used by N.Y. state and federal parks 4) the normal state park
camping cabin
rate. It is necessary to understand that many people in the level
3 catagory
are using the park from 20-40 nights per year and also form the
backbone of the
Dark Sky Fund group that is available as volunteer labor for park
improvements.
I see no problem with lantern
stands in the regular camping area, but like all
lights in the area they should be full cutoff shielded. The existing
lantern
stands could be modified to include a cover that will only allow
the light from
the lantern to shine down on the ground and only on that campsite.
It would be nice to have shower
facilities at Cherry Springs State Park (CSSP),
but it really isn't necessary, especially if there are adequate
showers at
nearby Lyman Run State Park.
It is vitally important to remember
that CSSP is an absolutely unique facility.
Degrading the existing useage and observing conditions in ANY
way should NOT be
allowed. Every effort should be made to protect and extend those
observing
conditions and the way to accomplish this is to utilize the under-used
areas of
the park located on the east side of Rt. 44. And finally, another
good reason
to not disrupt the existing observing area is that future administrations
might
be less attuned to the fragile state of this unique and special
park use.
#7 - Tony Donnangelo
Dear Maxine,
There is very little I could add
to the wonderfully put letters sent by
Scott, Gary, and Nick. It appears the focus of CSSP has shifted
from
the observer to the gawker. I fully understand that one of the
aspects
of the officials’ job is to promote their area. I have a
few ideas that
could help achieve that goal.
I would be willing to rent the
site where the pavilion sits. I would
build a “bed and breakfast” and museum complex. The
scopes you intend
purchasing could be put on display in the museum. The gawkers
could see
the various types of instruments that were actually used on the
field at
one time. I would show historical pictures of how dark the sky
used to
appear and films of bygone days when observers were on the field.
I
would charge a modest fee and donate half of my profits to “The
Dark Sky
Fund”.
You could allow users of ATVs
to ride up and down the trout streams.
You can hold a regale on the opening day of trout season. There
would
be many newspaper articles written about the great influx of additional
people on such a celebrated day.
You could hold a deer-spotting
contest on the night before the season’s
opening day. That would attract even more hunters. You can award
the
following prizes: the most powerful spotlight used, the smallest
spotlight used to actually spot a deer, the most spotlights on
one
vehicle, the most deer hit, the most flat tires from driving through
the
fields and woods, and the intoxicated person who bounces out the
back of
a pickup truck the most times. The number of deer spotted would
be
irrelevant. Who needs deer or a dark site when you’re having
so much
fun?
Sarcastic? Certainly! However,
the apparent future for CSSP isn’t
sarcasm; it may be a sad reality. I find it ironic that the aid
of
amateur astronomers is being enlisted to help destroy the natural
resource that they love. If CSSP is to maintain the status it
now
enjoys, the previous three persons presented very valid reasoning
that
needs serious consideration. I have to confirm, if there is so
much
money available, why not use some of it to create even darker
skies,
keep it pristine, use it for maintenance, and keep camping free
(or to a
very minimal). Some of the proposals on promoting astronomy are
good;
do the construction somewhere else.
Concerning the work-bee on May
7, I think it would be nice to help make
the park a better and more attractive place. It’ll enhance
and speed up
the eventual takeover by the gawkers. If I’m being harsh,
I make no
apologies. Some people are very disillusioned over all this.
Disillusioned myself,
Tony Donnangelo
#8 - Mike Coslo
There was no doubt from the early
days (at least of my involvement)
that this was the way that the Springs would develop.
The whole key is that the Park
and Astronomy activities are setting up
to serve the maximum amount of people. It appears that many AO's
have
been taken by surprise by this move. So while the State is looking
for
feedback on a plan based on a philosophy of how to use the resource,
a
number of people now want to argue the philosophy. It is way too
late
for that.
I'll make two main comments.
since philosophy has been addressed by
several posters, here is my take:
The development of CSSP is a
calculated risk. Will the "Gawkers" as
you call them, come to CSSP, and continue to come after their
initial
interest wears off? It is remote, it takes an effort for most
people to
get there, and not everyone is going to take the approach of the
hard-core astronomer - hopping in the car and driving 4 hours
each way
on a good weather report.
This is a double edged sword.
If interest in Amateur astronomy wears
off, it may be an advantage for the hard-core AO. Few Visitors,
and a
nice concrete pad to set up on. Another possibility is that it
might
end up as a kind of state supported local astronomy club, in function
if not in name. Hopefully it will end up being able to serve everyone
except the more solitary type of astronomer. Hmmmm, that is kind
of a
three edged sword, isn't it?
As for my personal philosophy,
I have no personal interest in the way
things are progressing, but can appreciate what is happening.
I am the
type of AO that enjoys observing by myself, or with a few friends.
It
is an interesting experiment, however. I hope CSSP is a big hit,
although I do have concerns that the very development being proposed
will make it less desirable. Only time will tell. But we must
remember,
serving as many people as possible is the park mandate, as far
as I
know.
In the meantime, there are other
places to observe , such as State
Camp. State Camp Outlook has been renovated, and the skies are
not
quite as dark as CSSP, but not too bad at all. That is where I'll
be
found. Probably by myself.
Now for the Comments on the site development:
Be careful about paving roads
and parking lots. Everywhere you put
macadam, a heat shedding line is added.
The same for restrooms and other
buildings. If it is heated, it will
mangle the viewing over it. This could be a serious problem. A
person
standing not too far from a scope, and under it, can even disturb
the
viewing with the heat they shed.
Otherwise the site improvements fit the philosophy well.
- Mike -
#9 - Harvey Lemay:
The several responses that have
been posted to the list have prompted me to read the proposal
linked to by Maxine's email. ( for convenience http://www.fermatainc.com/penn/
)
Now is NOT the time to be harsh, and sarcastic recommendations
are more often misinterpreted than viewed as helpful. If the
resources of PA are to be made so generously available, then positive,
constructive suggestions will guide that money to improvements
which will enhance our experience at Cherry Springs.
I drive 6.5 hours (plus extra for traffic) to get to CSSP. And
6.5 hours to get back home. So I do not make the trip for just
one night of observing. I usually plan 2-3 days. I also go to
the park just as often in the winter as in the summer, but never
as often as I would like.
The improvements that would INCREASE the number of times that
I make the trip, and ENHANCE my experience while there are:
A) Heated restroom, with hot and cold running water, mirrors,
and of course showers. I vastly prefer that such a facility be
built on the east side of Rt. 44, nestled in the campground, not
on the west side where we observe. Such a facility requires lighting
to be useful.
B) The new hardened drives pictured on page 2 of the .PDF file
make my heart leap with joy. Especially if they are made 20 feet
wide and are plowed (also 20 ft) in the winter. That way, we
could park our vehicles and set up the telescopes without shoveling
a bunch of the field. The 20 foot width comes into play so that
driving and telescopes can coexist during the daytime. As far
as the layout of the roads, I would prefer that they do not criss
cross the field as pictured, but rather extend individually into
the field from the current road, perhaps only 75 feet long. Roads
have a way of heating up in the sunshine, and then their cooling
during the evening will warble the image in the telescope.
C) A warming hut. I suggest a structure that includes tables
and chairs to seat 10-15 adults, with counter space and electric
outlets to plug in self-provided coffee makers. If the heating
system is operated by pumping quarters or feeding dollar bills,
then the building's energy use would pay for itself. The building
would have absolutely no lighting (we carry our red flashlights
everywhere we go), and lots of insulation (let's say R-60 or more)
to reduce the heat plume associated with a building. I also suggest
a double-doored foyer to reduce heat escaping when someone enters
or exits. Such a building would reduce the automobile idling
that occurs to warm up frozen feet and hands.
D) The proposed information kiosk facing Rt. 44 to inform visitors
that astronomy is in session and educating them on the etiquette
which makes us happy.
E) Visitor (person not observing all night) parking strip along
the west side of Rt. 44, north of the current entrance to the
observing field. This will also help the Stars-in-the-Parks program.
F) Take over the airport and put it out of business. Turn out
that light.
The improvements that would DECREASE the number of times that
I make the trip, and DETRACT FROM my experience while at CSSP
are:
A) The addition of any light bulb on the west side of Rt. 44,
or viewable from the observing field no matter where installed.
The only good light bulb is one that is so well shielded that
you do not see any light from it at all. Of course, if you cannot
see any of the light, then why spend money to install it in the
first place. I may be considered rabid on this point, but even
red lights detract from your night vision. Don't even get me
started on computer screens.
B) The addition of any camping cabins west of Rt. 44.
C) The addition of an interpretive center west of Rt. 44. The
proposed site at the north end of the down-sloping field is pretty
much out of sight, but I would prefer that a building of this
scale be relegated to the far eastern end of the park. Perhaps
at the end of the condemned airfield suggested in "F)"
above.
The improvements which were discussed in the FERMATA proposal
that have no bearing on my life, and will not change my behaviour
in the least are:
A) State Park telescope.
B) Observatory Dome.
C) Telescope pads, with all their fancy laser leveling.
D) Website development.
E) Interpretive staff.
My only concern with such "things" is that they require
annual maintenance which one day may not be funded so generously.
That means that they either decay, or eat into the budgets for
future improvements. I can definitely see the benefit that these
"things" will contribute to spreading astronomy knowledge,
and participation, and that alone may guarantee continued funding.
The development of Full Moon Weekend activities can fill the other
half of the month with more visitors than astronomy alone can
provide, and more park users can justify greater park resources.
Hervey
#10 - Elliott McKinley:
Hello Everyone!
Okay, I am way out here in Minnesota...
but I still
love and care deeply about CSSP and worry too about
some of the proposed plan.
Most of the hardcore astronuts--like
Gary, Nick, etc.
have voiced good concerns. So I wont waste much space
here with my concerns exactly.
I dont mind any park improvements
so long as they dont
negatively impact the dark skies and good observing we
all come to the park to enjoy.
Some ideas:
- Paved access roads to the observing
area--this would
cut down dust, etc.
- I spoke with Chip about this
a few times: How about
some landscaping--i.e. drainage--put in place on the
observing field? That way we wont have lake CSSP like
we sometimes do after rain... or just a muddy mess.
- I dont mind the idea of a "warming"
room with
appropriate red lighting (: - PERHAPS this could be
folded into a small visitors center that promotes dark
sky initiatives and educated the general public about
the night sky. Again, NO additional lighting other
than dim red lighting at the most inside the building
(maybe white for emergencies).
- Take the airport out of comission.
Use the space for
public nights and/or overflow during starparties. And,
YES, get rid of that street-lamp.
- Keep the payphone - maybe install
a dim red light in
the booth?
Any initiative that will degrade
the already degrading
sky conditions there would be very, very bad indeed.
Its bad enough that Coudersport is throwing up a small
light dome to our northwest. I understand the desire
to spread the word about CSSP--I just worry about
non-astronomers, increased traffic, lighting, etc.
Best,
Elliott
#11 - Kes Lukas:
Don't "improve" the
natural setting of Cherry Springs. How do you "improve"
something that's already fine?
A natural area is attractive for what it is. I've been to parks
and historic places that have been "improved"
and totally changed in mood from their original beauty and historical
significance. Cherry Springs is what it is
exactly because it has not been "improved." The attraction
of a trip to the country is to be in a place that has not
been "improved." The best "improvement" would
be to pass a law not to touch places like Cherry Springs. If
it's not broken, don't fix it. It works fine as it is, don't
"improve" it. Just protect it.
Kes Lukas
#12 -Tim Milligan
Dear Maxine and Chip,
I am an amateur astronomer and
have only been to CSSP 2 times but I
hope to make more visits. I have not been to CSSP in 3 years and
I am
not sure of what improvements have been done since that time.
When I
see words like "Market" and "Revenue"... that
scares me. It appears
that someone sees CSSP has more of a way to make money then a
natural
resource. And maybe the powers-that-be have that right.
One of the best aspects of CSSP
that I liked was the LACK of
development. This whole development plan saddens me, and this
will
probably be the demise of CSSP as a haven and escape for amateur
astronomers in the region.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Tim Milligan
#13 - Ron Robisch
Hi Max,
I finally read (and re-read) the
Fermata plan and feel
compelled to pipe in, too. BTW, anyone who has not
read it, please do. http://www.fermatainc.com/penn/
It is not clear to me what the
objective of this
development effort is. Increase the numbers of
visitors to the park? Generate more revenue? Educate
more of the passive recreational visitors about
astronomy? Improve CSSP as a dark sky observing
location for serious amateurs? I wish this was
clearly indicated.
My biggest concerns are the proposed
log cabins along
the observing field and the encouragement for DCNR to
work with “local development agencies to promote
private-sector development of additional food and
lodging”.
As shown on the proposed design
on p.2 of the plan,
the proposed cabins would be located along the edge of
the observing field, meaning they would be in a direct
line of sight for the majority of the observing field,
as is the proposed visitor’s center. Perhaps the
visitor’s center can be totally unlit at night, but if
the cabins are occupied then ANY internal lights will
directly effect (compromise) the observing field.
Furthermore, the additional people – the “passive
recreational public” – inhabiting the cabins will
surely be carrying around white flashlights, using
them for all the other nighttime activities planned.
And they will probably want to start a campfire, or
perhaps the cabins will have fireplaces? That would
do wonders for the seeing conditions. And what about
additional vehicular traffic from these folks? Will
they be parking their minivans next to their cabins,
free to pull in or out whenever they like?
These conditions are unacceptable
for amateur
astronomers wanting to observe under a dark sky. It
seems that the Fermata folks are not really aware that
not only is the sky’s darkness important, but so too
is the absence of local light sources which compromise
a stargazer’s dark-adapted eyes. If those cabins go
in as planned, few amateurs will bother to travel to
CSSP any longer. Even the organized star parties
would suffer loss of attendance.
As for encouraging commercial
lodging and food sources
nearby, Fermata suggest imitating what’s been done in
New Mexico at Star Hill Inn. They can suggest that
all they want, but how on earth can they ensure that
things will develop that way??? What’s to prevent a
McDonald’s from going up instead? Surely, any
commercial development around the park would sacrifice
the sky darkness. Again, amateurs would stop trekking
to CSSP.
Regarding the proposed telescope
pads, these could be
a nice idea, but I’m not so sure about the proposed
locations. Looks like some are close to the treeline,
which would reduce the available horizon. And what
are the low-level lights? Are they needed? Are they
red, even? Also, I’m not sure about the telescope
domes idea (I haven’t checked that website yet,
though); are they necessary?
Fermata’s proposal for the
WildsDarkSkies program
seeks to tie in dark sky stargazing with other
nighttime activities, such as owl watching, bat
watching, frog counting, and moonlit kayaking, in an
effort to attract more of the casual recreational
visitors. In the process, Fermata has blurred the
distinction between night and night under a very dark
sky. Night can be obtained at ANY of the other state
parks. Night under a very dark sky cannot. With
cabins adjoining the field, local commercial
development, and large increases in the number of
casual campers, it won’t be obtained at CSSP either.
Well, those are my thoughts.
Clear skies all,
Ron Robisch
Monrovia MD
#14 - P. Edward Murray
Ron, thank you so much for this link!:)
Wild Dark Skies...Branding Products etc.
Only $27,000 for an interpretative specialist?
More fees?
I smell a rat! Somebody wants to get rich off of Amateur Astronomers!
Excuse me...but we are going to hell in a handbasket if we accept this!
P. Edward Murray
Former President
Bucks-Mont. Astronomical Assoc., Inc.