Support swells to make San Juan Islands a national monument
»Play Video
FRIDAY HARBOR, Wash. -- Shrouded in fog, stretching out from the northern edge of the Strait of Juan De Fuca lies a treasure of the Northwest: The San Juan Islands.
Four islands make up the main draw in the San Juans, but there are 172 named islands and reefs -- some of them little more than rocks jutting out of the ocean.
One thousand acres of these pieces of land are at the heart of a passionate movement that puts the tranquil San Juan's in the line of sight of Washington D.C. -- being named a national monument.
"This would protect them from development," said Rep. Rick Larsen. "These are lands that aren't developed now and they belong to the us taxpayer we want to protect them from any sort of development that might come in the future."
All it takes is a signature from the President.
There are more than 100 national monuments, but just two are in Washington -- both Mt. St. Helens and the Hanford Reach.
Adding a third is the talk of the town.
"We talked about it, I learned it's an important cause," said student Graham Crawbeck. "So I went and spoke in front of the council and typed up a paper about it."
The county council endorsed the idea. Businesses and locals lined up in support.
But while there is no organized opposition, some islanders worry the designation could change their way of life.
"We know that tourism is the major part of the economy, but at the same time, we don't want to become the destination resort where the locals are part of a petting zoo," said resident Greg Hergel. "We don't want to become someone else's local color for their photographs. There's some real concern it will push it in that direction."
While the land is not being targeted by developers now, supporters worry it will be.
"It may change things, but I like to think it will change things for the positive so that they're protected," said Barbara Marrett with the Visitors Bureau. "What's key to me is that locals are going to have a say in the management plan."
The area that would be covered by the national monument designation includes part of Lopez Island and the iconic Cattle Point Lighthouse.
"Me and my dad, we go down there and we just stand by the lighthouse and the wind is just barreling in and there's all the waves and it's kind of like, it's a magical experience," said Rayna Ellis.
What's the best way to protect that magical experience? To leave it as is, or make it a national monument? The answer could come soon in the form of a signature from President Obama.
He's expected to agree that public lands in the San Juan's are a point of national pride, making the newest monument just a ferry ride away.
Four islands make up the main draw in the San Juans, but there are 172 named islands and reefs -- some of them little more than rocks jutting out of the ocean.
One thousand acres of these pieces of land are at the heart of a passionate movement that puts the tranquil San Juan's in the line of sight of Washington D.C. -- being named a national monument.
"This would protect them from development," said Rep. Rick Larsen. "These are lands that aren't developed now and they belong to the us taxpayer we want to protect them from any sort of development that might come in the future."
All it takes is a signature from the President.
There are more than 100 national monuments, but just two are in Washington -- both Mt. St. Helens and the Hanford Reach.
Adding a third is the talk of the town.
"We talked about it, I learned it's an important cause," said student Graham Crawbeck. "So I went and spoke in front of the council and typed up a paper about it."
The county council endorsed the idea. Businesses and locals lined up in support.
But while there is no organized opposition, some islanders worry the designation could change their way of life.
"We know that tourism is the major part of the economy, but at the same time, we don't want to become the destination resort where the locals are part of a petting zoo," said resident Greg Hergel. "We don't want to become someone else's local color for their photographs. There's some real concern it will push it in that direction."
While the land is not being targeted by developers now, supporters worry it will be.
"It may change things, but I like to think it will change things for the positive so that they're protected," said Barbara Marrett with the Visitors Bureau. "What's key to me is that locals are going to have a say in the management plan."
The area that would be covered by the national monument designation includes part of Lopez Island and the iconic Cattle Point Lighthouse.
"Me and my dad, we go down there and we just stand by the lighthouse and the wind is just barreling in and there's all the waves and it's kind of like, it's a magical experience," said Rayna Ellis.
What's the best way to protect that magical experience? To leave it as is, or make it a national monument? The answer could come soon in the form of a signature from President Obama.
He's expected to agree that public lands in the San Juan's are a point of national pride, making the newest monument just a ferry ride away.
It sounds good till you want to build a house or a dock!
 Just another government land grab.Â
I'd encourage interested folks to find out more about the effort. There's lots of information at www.SanJuanIslandsNCA.org.
Â
Addressing some of the topics from earlier comments:
- The goal is to protect and preserve existing public lands that locals and visitors value.
- These are already federal lands - no land is being acquired by the government. No additional land will need upkeep.Â
- The national monument designation instructs BLM to manage these lands for conservation and recreation, preventing future sale of these public lands.
- BLM doesn't manage national monuments the way the Park Service does at places like the Statue of Liberty. They work with the local community and visitors to protect and preserve - not to create turnstiles or a theme destination.
- These lands are well cared for, largely through the work of scores of volunteers. The community has a great relationship with BLM. They want to make sure that the protection of these local landmarks is enshrined in law in addition to the good intentions of the current BLM staff.
Â
Again, there's lots of information at www.SanJuanIslandsNCA.org, including the names of hundreds of organizations and individuals who support this effort.
Â
Sorry. That last web link was broken by the comment system. The link is www.SanJuanIslandsNCA.org
And just who is it that's doing the pushing. I can't find anybody that's in favor of this fiasco in the making.
Get rid of your PWC ban!
Just how in hell is the State, Federal or Park Service going to pay the upkeep for this "New National Park" system??? We can't pay for what we have now. Could this be another ploy to build another rich man's paradise AT OUT EXPENSE?? Let's see, you have to pay for a ferry ride that doesn't go to all the islands or you have to have a boat. You will not have a small boat because the tides and storms cam be vicious there. There are a lot of other negatives with putting something like this together and yet our insane government wants to take on another load that US TAX PAYERS will be stuck for. If they want to keep it like it is, don't sell the land, don't build new business's, don't build new condo's, don't do anything and nothing will happen. Do not ask me to fund you "little piece of heaven". I can't afford mine.Â
If they want to preseve their way of life, the residents of the San Juan islands should push for MORE development, not less! Once the islands are filled with trophy homes, trendy shops, shopping centers and new highways, nobody will want to live there anymore...problem solved. In short, if you live in a peaceful and beautiful place, the only way to save it is to make it harried, hurried, cramped and ugly, like the places people want to escape from in the first place!
Oh, NO! DEVELOPMENT! The ENEMY! Oh, wait. You mean you'll drive up prices, limit recreation, lose more land to external control, and cost a bunch of tax-payer dollars? So, um, WHY would I do that, again?
This is the 24th time the media have announced that "support is growing" -- in different ways. Â Keep on trying to convince us. Â We don't want to become Disneyland. Â That is where the islands are headed. Â Soon they'll be telling us what color to paint our houses.
 @Malby Lewis This has nothing to do with Disneyland or petting zoos. That is not even the point of preserving the BLM lands. The main point is to keep them the way that they are, and that has nothing to do with the town of Friday Harbor or any of the other towns in San Juan County. Tourist trade aside, this is about protecting our lands.
Good for home prices...
@Komo Dragon NO they need to condem all properties and kick all humans off the islands!
to follow up with my other post as long as there is zero humans on the islands zero homes zero docks zero friday harbor. I will back that messure 1,000 percent.
 @wynooheeman That does seem to be the ultimate object.  I hope they can afford to pay for all the homes and businesses.
Fine then tear down all the towns homes and let nature run its course.
Look mommy, what is that? That's called a local resident dear. Now shut up and stop staring.
Summary:Â The people who already live there want to keep anybody else from living there.
 @Mumblix Grumph No, actually most islanders oppose the concept.  It's being pushed by a bunch of connected Democrats.
 @Malby Lewis  @Mumblix Grumph The main reason why many of the residents of the San Juan Islands want to turn the BLM lands into a national monument is to maintain the ecosystems that exist there. The BLM lands have the capability to be sold, and that is why the movement for the monument was started; so that they lands can't be sold. No one would want to live on or visit the islands if they looked like every other suburb in the country. That is the main reason why many residents want to protect our lands; we want to keep the island's natural beauty. That is what bring tourists to the islands and keeps our island economy going. Without it, the tourist trade would go down, and the local businesses would suffer.
Â
This not a time to be pointing political fingers. This a time to be worrying about our local environment. The main reason for "pushing" this is to protect the local ecosystems; the tourist trade is only a side benefit.
 @anislander  @Malby Lewis Sorry, I don't buy it. This sounds like people just don't want to share. "I've got my house here, now nobody else gets to move here." Oh, sure...we're free to come by and spend a lot of money and then scram while the grandfathered property owners get to keep it all to themselves while waving the "environment" flag to justify it.
Another national treasure that will be controlled by the UN. Most people think we the people own places like this and Yellowstone, more to pity. The UN is grabbing world treasures from the people without the people even being told about it.
Â
If the American people don't wake up to the evil that hides at the UN, we will all be owned.
 @komoispropaganda What are you talking about the UN? National monuments are US Gov't, not UN.
 @komoispropaganda You get Hagar's "Tin Foil Hat" award for the week. Congratulations!
 @komoispropaganda Keep your paranoia to yourself. If it was concern, we would know. The islands are very well informed about what making our BLM lands into a national monument means, and whether it would be going to the UN or not. I have read the treaty, and it doesn't say anything about "grabbing world treasures from the people" from what I can see. I think that you should check multiple sources before you go pointing fingers.
The reason for the local population may well be conservation, but any kind action like this does indeed fall under the treaty.
Â
What the treaty does is give the UN the power to quarantine the lands if the UN ever deems the lands being abused by anyone or any faction. The UN has the power to effectively seize around 60% of America's protected lands by TREATY.
Â
This is a sovereign country that has to take orders from the UN in regard to US OWNED lands. You might want to look at the US Constitution on this subject.
Â
UN treaties are one of our president's favorite way to get around the Constitution.
Â
Do some research. I hardly believe that you posses the knowledge to analyze and interpret the treaty. I've had to read qualified analysis by far more knowledgeable than you on the UN and it's "treaties" with the US
 @anislander  @komoispropaganda "If it was concern, we would know."
Â
LOL, when you "know" it is usually too late
This comment has been deleted
 @moosedrool  @komoispropaganda at least spell it right ;-)
 @moosedrool What an argument. Prove me wrong.
Â
Don't call me an idiot, it shows your knowledge is lacking.
 @moosedrool Here, one small clue for you to look into just to get you started. Search for the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty.
do it!