The early 20th century found John Otto, an eccentric outdoorsman with an enthusiasm for the land surrounding Grand Junction, exploring the canyons and building trails. After an impassioned letter-writing crusade in which he pleaded with Congress to designate the locale as a national park, Otto finally saw his work pay off. The area became the Colorado National Monument in 1911. 100 years later, another campaign to turn the Monument into a national park is in full swing. On Feb. 23, Colorado Senator Mark Udall will attend a public listening session in the College Center’s ballroom addressing the potential change.

National monuments are areas set aside by the government because they contain items of interest, either historical or scientific. Monuments receive less funding from the federal government and offer less extensive wildlife protection. National parks are set aside by Congress to protect exceptional objects and must be large enough to allow for use by many visitors, with varied recreational opportunities.

Supporters of the transition from monument to park feel that the Colorado National Monument is diverse enough to contain items of inspirational, recreational, and educational value, which are all qualities valued by Congress when designating parks. Changing the Monument to a park could generate interest in the Western Slope and tourist revenue for Grand Junction.

Junior Sam Kilman, who interned in the Monument’s historical archives last year, believes the transition is all about recognition.
“Colorado National Monument is already run by the National Park Service,” Kilman said. “They want to put the words ‘national park’ in there to make it more recognizable. They’re trying to let people know it’s there.”

Detractors feel the switch may have the opposite effect. Becoming a park may necessitate a name change, which would reduce recognition of the area. There is also concern among Grand Valley businesses that the heightened environmental protection afforded by national park status could infringe on current land and water rights. Previous attempts to shift from monument to park failed because the proposals included plans to add land to the area’s boundaries.

Kilman is concerned that a transition will lessen the Monument’s long history.

“I think it’s already great and I don’t think there’s a reason to change it,” Kilman said. “Last year, we’d go into the archives and pull stuff out from original letters and things. I think since it’s history-based, it should stay a monument. It’s more of a traditional thing and it’s been that way for a long time.

Senator Udall, who serves as chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on National Parks, has supported the effort to create a park by petitioning for large-scale events like cycling races to be held in the Monument. Governor John Hickenlooper has joined the senator in encouraging more publicity for the area in an effort to boost the local economy and show that Colorado can balance recreation and protection of resources. Udall acknowledged in the invitation to Wednesday’s discussion that there remain factors that need to be considered.

“This change would not be quick or easy, and would require many months of hard work with local stakeholders, the public and the National Park Service to ensure a balanced and smart policy that works for the Monument as well as surrounding communities,” Udall wrote on his web site.
Wednesday’s meeting, which will be held at 5:30 p.m., is an opportunity for those stakeholders to discover and discuss the possible effects of a change.

ssummar@mesastate.edu