| OCR Text |
Show 87 canyons. 251 But the Utah National Park bill had not been debated or voted on, and it died with the close of the legislative session. Neither paper acknowledged the reporting errors. But several days later when the Zion National Park bill was signed, both accurately acknowledged Bryce Canyon as a separate proposal. 252 Despite the short life of Smoot's bill, Mather indicated he would consider lobbying for the national park in the future. The Salt lake Tribune reported that Mather said Bryce Canyon was " of national park caliber, but that for the present it is best to concentrate on Zion National park [sic], with the possibility that in the fun.ire there may be a linking together of these scenic wondcrs."253 The Deseret News outlined the hurdles standing in the way of Bryce Canyon becoming a national park: land ownership and jurisdiction. When Zion National Park was created, the federal government had to acquire state and private lands inside the park. Bryce Canyon would face the same problem on a larger scale. The federally-owned land in the canyon was part of the Powell National Forest, under the direction of the Agriculture Department. But the National Park Service was in the Interior Department, and a rivalry was growing between the departments stemming from conflicting landmanagement philosophies and a desire to accumulate and maintain holdings. The contention over ceding private- and state-owned land in the proposed park was minor compared to the debate over which federal agency would administer the land. The U.S. Forest Service and railroad companies had promoted Bryce in official m De.feret Evening News, "Director of Parks Will Speak at Banquet," November 22, 1919, sec. 2, 1. m Deseret Evening News, "Signs Bill," November 24, 1919; Sofl lake Tribune, "Park Is Reality," November 25, 1919. m Salt lake Tribune, '"l'ark Is Reality," November 25, 1919. |
