| OCR Text |
Show 22 calamity."53 A similar quote that could have applied to either of the controversies occurring years apart came from the chainnan of the state's water commission. He wrote: "Why should federal officials seemingly ignore the necessities of the State of Utah in their anxieties to create a monument or recreational area named 'Escalante' which would forever prevent this region from producing the greatest benefit to Utah and the nation?" 54 Although the similarities are numerous, one major difference offers insight into how attitudes toward federal protection of land has changed in Utah. I listorian Elmo Richardson writes that in the earlier controversy, "Utahns were naturally anxious to defend their economic interests ... (However,] there was a surprising amount of sentiment for compromise." 55 As early as 1935, this debate shows evidence of great resistance in Utah to land policy under the designation of a national monument or park. Although Zion National Park received widespread support when it was designated in 1919, subsequent opposition suggests a significant change in attitudes of state leaders and residents. The opposition in the 1930s and 1940s, as Richardson showed, was tame compared to the backlash of 1996. ln the later dates, land users were emboldened by the Sagebrush Rebellion, and with the feeling that locals had no voice in land-use decisions, recalcitrance and animosity came to typify the locals' sentiments toward federal land policy. However, not all Utahns joined the angry majority. The broad environmental history of the state as it relates to national parks is more complex and nuanced than this 53 Elmo R. Richardson, "Federal Park Policy in Utah: The Escalante National Monument Controversy of 1935-1940," Utah Histarica{Quarter{y 33 (Spring 1965), 127. "Ibid., 127. H]bid., ]19. |
