Back 
The Alaska Commercial Fishermen’s Memorial board has stated its position on moving the memorial: don’t build the cruise ship docks in front of the memorial, or, if the docks must be built there, relocate the memorial to Marine Park.
The board took public comment, both at a public meeting held by Docks and Harbors and in written letters.
“The board’s first preference is that dock 16B not be constructed in front of the memorial,” the letter states. “If 16B is constructed in front of the memorial, the board’s preference is that the memorial be relocated so that it continues to have open access to the water, is downtown, and can be visited and viewed by fishermen, Juneau citizens, and visitors. Among the alternative locations for the memorial, the board’s first preference is the location along the waterfront at Marine Park, which should include a full view plain of Gastineau Channel, a tideland easement, and an easement offshore to preserve open access between the water and the Memorial for the annual Blessing of the Fleet and Dedication of Names.”
The second “if it has to move” option is to put it between the Intermediate Vessel Float and the AJ Dock — “but only if there is a guarantee that no future dock construction at that location will interfere with open access between the Memorial and Gastineau Channel. The other options posed by the City were unacceptable to the board because of geographic, navigation, logistical, or isolation problems and limitations.”
The board received two written comments. One said to leave the memorial where it is and wanted 16B to not encroach. The other was from Chip Thoma, with Responsible Cruising in Alaska.
Thoma suggested that instead of spending $2 million in relocating the memorial, it should consider a moveable memorial.
“My proposal is simple — recreate the Juneau Fishermen’s memorial on portable and durable signage that can be updated yearly with names and used in a number of local ceremonies,” Thoma stated in his letter. “For example, the “Moving Wall” of the Vietnam Memorial successfully recreated that DC monument, which travels to 25 communities each year, spending four days in each one. Juneau can make a similar gesture with a portable Fishermen’s Memorial, used for the Blessing of the Fleet in May and for any other event, such as the 4th of July parade. I believe this portable solution for the monument can result in saving millions and could actually increase the profile and use of the present monument location.”
The board’s letter touched on Thoma’s suggestion, but leaned away from that idea. It said the suggestion creates more problems than it would solve.
“Leaving the memorial where it is after 16B is constructed would divorce the Blessing from the Dedication of Names,” the board wrote. “Instead of one location for what is now a single event, the Blessing and Dedication would be separated physically, spatially, and emotionally. The Blessing would have to take place on one of 16B’s docks with separate speakers, clergy, flowers, participants, and infrastructure temporarily located on one of 16B’s docks. The time and distance between that event and the Dedication would mean the Dedication would occur separately from the Blessing.”
It also shied away from the suggestion because it had a lot of unanswered questions about where the moveable memorial would be stored, who would pay to maintain it, who would be in charge of moving it, where the Blessing would be, and other related questions.
In the letter’s footnotes, it states a memorial like that would be hard to maintain and coordinate in a community this size.
“A mobile fishermen’s memorial would be extremely difficult to model on that concept because, based on information from the mobile memorial’s website, it must be operated, maintained, and funded by many volunteers, and requires a substantial amount of planning and preparation and ‘countless other tasks,’” the letter states. “The Fishermen’s Memorial does not have a similar kind of volunteer or financial base to maintain and implement a similar mobile memorial.”
In closing, the letter strongly emphasized the importance and meaning of the memorial.
“The board is cognizant of the emotional attachment that many, including the board, has to the memorial’s present location,” it states. “The board warned from the outset that 16B would create many problems, and that moving the memorial is not something that the board or many others wanted to do. The board indicated that some names on the memorial have no other tangible expression of a valuable life because those individuals were lost at sea. Thus, the board has been sensitive to the concern that the board initially raised that moving the Memorial would be akin to moving a graveyard, with all the attendant emotional upheaval and angst associated with that kind of an action.”
The letter is signed by board members Bruce Weyhrauch, Ted Merrell, Bob Millard, Linnea Osborne, Tom Gemmell, Melissa Museth and Tisa Becker.
Docks and Harbors Port Engineer Gary Gillette said the letter will be addressed by the Docks and Harbors Capital Improvement Project Committee at its July 21 meeting. Gillette said Parks and Recreation is in the planning phase of Marine Park and he will have to research the feasibility of moving the memorial to either location and work with the departments involved so that the committee has enough information to move forward.
“Now it’s up to the board to consider what the next best option is,” Gillette said.
• Contact reporter Sarah Day at 523-2279 or at sarah.day@juneauempire.com
Comments (19)
Add commentThe memorial is sacred and
The memorial is sacred and should be teated that way. I think the memorial should have priority. It should only be moved to marine park if it is better location for the memorial. The dock location should be secondary. The movable idea is disrespectful as well as stupid.
Leave it alone!!
The Memorial is perfect where it is!
The Vietnam Memorial is very permanently located adjacent to the National Mall in Washington, D.C..
We need a portable dock!
Memorial
Can someone explain to me, an atheist, how a memorial that is movable is deemed disrespectful? Is there some sort of rule in play here?
It seems to me the idea is simply one way to address the issue. I don't have any reason to believe that it was proposed as a way to be disrespectful.
Thanks,
Mike
Leave the Memorial Alone and Build the New Dock
What is wrong with building a new dock and just leaving the existing memorial alone and maintaining the memorial in a fine way?
Hey Mike
Fishermen lost at sea also lose the chance for a proper burial. Because of this, for many families, the memorial is the closest thing to a gravesite for people to visit. I understand that the moveable memorial was not proposed out of disrespect, but a portable gravestone would make for a somewhat ridiculous display, and that's how many people feel about the mobile memorial.
It was a suggestion made in earnest by the very board that seeks to protect this monument. The story here makes the board seem very passive about the memorial, but I highly doubt that is the case.
One thing that I cannot
One thing that I cannot understand is how there is enough room for another dock. I visit the memorial often to contemplate, and half the time there is a cruise ship between the memorial and the channel anyway. Then there is the dock outside of Taku Smokeries where fishermen bring their catch. This whole idea seems needlessly disruptive and disrespectful.
@ afishisborn re:memorial
I appreciate the response. I'm not sure what exactly to think about this memorial yet. That's why I'm fishing, so-to-speak.
I am all for community solidarity (the peaceful sort) and have nothing in principle against designated land uses for memorials. That said, I do have a caveat: such sites must be societally inclusive when government resources are needed.
And I might as well just say it. This whole "blessing" aspect concerns me as do comments here about "sacredness" and "disrespect" without reasons to deny that the common religious uses for those terms are not in play.
Move it or keep it, but whatever is decided, as a citizen myself with two cents always to spare, I'd like the focus (if it isn't already) to be on the sentiments for a change rather than the stones which historically become memorials just for memorials sake.
Mike
/Edit
Sacredness and blessing
Sacredness and blessing certainly are religious in nature, though these are more private concerns - a citizen certainly has the right to consider a space as sacred even while we atheists see no such thing. However, respect has nothing to do with religion. I find it disrespectful that we would consider catering to tourists, who have been growing in numbers lately yet not bringing much more income to the city, a higher priority than recognizing local fishermen who have lost their lives in economic pursuits also important to the city.
So, for me at least, it is all about sentiment. There is already a large portion of downtown that arguably does not belong to us - even the docks are mostly inaccessible to us in the summer, thanks to a long yellow fence for homeland security purposes. Are we now surrendering the memories of our dead to the convenience of the tourist industry?
In Peru, tourism at Machu Picchu has caused much erosion, and an advertising company caused irreparable damage to a sundial. Juneau's losses are much less devastating, but it feels increasingly like downtown does not belong to Juneau anymore. At what point do we stop?
Visit The Memorial, Then Decide
To those who have not visited the memorial, it is located between the tram and the Twisted Fish restaurant. That appropriate location is also adjacent to the Taku Fisheries dock, where commercial fishermen get ice and deliver their catch.
Because the commercial fleet blessing is a one-hour affair on a chosen day in May without cruise ships, there is no conflict between the present location and its single purpose - to honor fishermen. New cruise docks are not an issue or a conflict.
Spending $2 million dollars to move the memorial is not justifiable, especially when it is officially used for one hour on one day each year. Visit the present site and decide for yourself.
Ongoing.
Mike--Why don't you take a walk by the Memorial.This Memorial is an ongoing location to remember those active in the fisheries as well as those lost at sea.These stone were not put there to be forgotten.
Other People's Money
Some people feel awful important spending someone else's $2,000,000.00!
Keep it there!!!
Why move it for the tourist who use the place 4 months of the year! Build out around thane instead!
@Skirz
I think you misunderstood Mike's comment. He was simply curious why the moveable monument received such disdain. Atheists, at least in my experience, are at least as compassionate as theists.
Still No Basis for the No Build Demand
We should honor those who fish and especially those who lost their lives fishing. Keep the memorial and set aside a special day every year to memorialize those lost at sea fishing. And a blessing of the fishing fleet is appropriate. But how are maintaining these important traditions at the present location inconsistent with building a new pair of docks? Keep the existing memorial where it rests now and maintain the memorial properly. What real world problem are we trying to address with the no build solution?
http://tinyurl.com/4ow75ws
ghjgjyu
Move it.
If I were a fisherman who was lost at sea, I would not feel the slightest disrespect if my memorial was moved for the better good of the society in which I lived.
Graves get moved all the time.
I agree with Mike. Sacred, blessing, sanctity, all those religious things are subjective; important to some, totally irrelevant to others.
It's a memorial, a monument. People grieve in different ways. Let's not romanticize things. Moving a memorial doesn't lessen the memory of those for whom it was placed. It is the memorial itself, not the place, that is important.
I once told my loved ones, "remember me where I lived, not where I died."